[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 29, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16523-16528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7624]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 258
[FRL-6565-6]
West Virginia: Final Determination of Partial Program Adequacy of
the State's Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permitting Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Final Determination of Partial Program Adequacy for
the State of West Virginia's Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permitting
Program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 4005(c)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, requires states to develop and implement
permit programs or other systems to ensure that municipal solid waste
landfills (MSWLFs) which may receive hazardous household waste or small
quantity generator waste will comply with the revised federal MSWLF
criteria
[[Page 16524]]
(40 CFR part 258). Section 4005(c)(1)(C) of RCRA requires the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine whether states have
adequate programs for MSWLFs.
On October 23, 1998, EPA published the final State Implementation
Rule (SIR) which contains procedures by which EPA will approve or
partially approve state landfill permit programs (63 FR 57025). Prior
to that date, EPA processed state applications for EPA approval of
their landfill permit programs based on draft SIR procedures. The
procedures contained in the draft SIR did not significantly differ from
the final SIR.
Owners/operators of MSWLFs located in states with EPA-approved
permit programs can use the site-specific flexibility provided by 40
CFR part 258 to the extent the state permit program allows such
flexibility. EPA notes that regardless of the approval status of a
state and the permit status of any facility, the federal landfill
criteria will apply to all permitted and unpermitted MSWLF facilities.
However, facilities in EPA-approved states may have more flexibility in
meeting those criteria.
On June 17, 1994, the State of West Virginia applied for a
determination of partial program adequacy for its municipal solid waste
landfill permit program under section 4005 of RCRA. West Virginia
submitted relevant regulations that corresponded to all sections of 40
CFR part 258 except for specific sections of the following four
subparts:
1. Subpart A--General: West Virginia (WV) was not able to adopt all
of the definitions listed under 40 CFR 258.2;
2. Subpart E--Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action: WV was
not able to adopt the requirements of 40 CFR 258.51, Groundwater
Monitoring Systems; 40 CFR 258.54, Detection Monitoring Program; and 40
CFR 258.55, Assessment Monitoring Program;
3. Subpart F--Closure and Post-Closure Care: WV was not able to
adopt the criteria in 40 CFR 258.60, Closure Criteria, pertaining to
the time allowed to apply the final cover;
4. Subpart G--Financial Assurance Criteria: West Virginia was not
able to adopt any of the sections or provisions of this Subpart.
On March 8, 1996, EPA published a tentative determination of
partial program adequacy for all portions of the State of West Virginia
MSWLF permitting program that satisfied the federal provisions of 40
CFR part 258, with the exceptions mentioned above (61 FR 9451-9454).
EPA delayed the final determination of partial program adequacy of West
Virginia's program due to litigation that affected the state's solid
waste management authorities. However, these issues were resolved by
the passage of West Virginia Senate Bill 178 on March 2, 1998. Based on
EPA's March 8, 1996 tentative determination and the amendment of West
Virginia's solid waste management authorities, as provided in Senate
Bill 178, EPA is today completing its decision making process by
issuing a final determination of partial program adequacy of West
Virginia's MSWLF permitting program.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final determination of partial program adequacy
for the State of West Virginia shall be effective on April 28, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029, Attn: Mr. Michael C.
Giuranna, mailcode 3WC21, telephone (215) 814-3298. The contact for the
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection is Mr. Larry Atha,
1356 Hansford Street, Charleston, West Virginia 25301-1401, telephone
(304) 558-6350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
On October 9, 1991, EPA promulgated revised criteria for MSWLFs (40
CFR part 258). Section 4005(c)(1)(B) of Subtitle D of RCRA, as amended
by HSWA, requires states to develop permitting or other similar
programs that incorporate the federal criteria under 40 CFR part 258.
Subtitle D also requires in Section 4005(c)(1)(C) that EPA determine
the adequacy of state MSWLF permitting programs to ensure that
facilities comply with the revised federal criteria. To fulfill this
requirement, the Agency promulgated the State Implementation Rule on
October 23, 1998 (63 FR 57025) which provides procedures by which EPA
will approve or partially approve state landfill permit programs.
EPA interprets the requirements for states to develop ``adequate''
programs for permits, or other forms of prior approval, as imposing
several minimum requirements. First, each state must have enforceable
standards for new and existing MSWLFs that are technically comparable
to EPA's revised MSWLF criteria. Next, the state must have the
authority to issue a permit or other notice of prior approval to all
new and existing MSWLFs in its jurisdiction. The state also must
provide for public participation in permit issuance and enforcement as
required in section 7004(b) of RCRA. Finally, EPA believes that the
state must show that it has sufficient compliance monitoring and
enforcement authorities to take specific action against any owner or
operator who fails to comply with an approved MSWLF program.
EPA Regions determine whether state programs are ``adequate'' based
on the criteria outlined above.
B. State of West Virginia
In a letter dated June 17, 1994, the West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection (WVDEP) submitted an application to EPA Region
III for a determination of partial program adequacy. In response to
EPA's comments on West Virginia's application, the WVDEP submitted
additional information in letters dated April 10, 1995 and October 12,
1995. EPA reviewed WVDEP's application and this additional information
and published a tentative determination of partial program adequacy for
subparts B, C and D, and portions of subparts A, E and F of 40 CFR part
258, as described below, in the Federal Register on March 8, 1996 (61
FR 9451-9454).
A public comment period began on March 8, 1996, and ended on April
30, 1996. As announced in the notice of tentative determination, a
public hearing was offered to be held on April 30, 1996, if sufficient
interest was expressed by the public. Since only one commenter
requested that a hearing be held, it was determined that sufficient
interest did not exist, and therefore a public hearing was not held.
This commenter submitted written comments which are addressed, along
with all other comments, in Section C, Public Comments, of this notice.
Following the close of the public comment period, WVDEP addressed all
public comments which EPA received on its tentative determination.
Based on WVDEP's response to comments, EPA was prepared to publish a
final determination of partial program adequacy of the West Virginia
MSWLF permitting program in late 1996. However, EPA delayed the final
determination of partial program adequacy of West Virginia's program
due to several rulings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia which brought into question the
implementation of portions of the West Virginia solid waste statutes.
However, on March 2, 1998, the Governor of West Virginia signed into
law Senate Bill 178 which corrected language in the State's solid waste
laws that had previously been declared unconstitutional by the federal
court rulings. The provisions of Senate Bill 178 eliminated EPA's
concerns about the enforceability of West Virginia's solid waste
statutes and allowed EPA to
[[Page 16525]]
proceed with this final determination of partial program adequacy.
Listed below are the elements of the federal program that West
Virginia's MSWLF permitting program satisfy for partial program
approval. These elements of the federal program that West Virginia's
MSWLF permitting program satisfy were listed in EPA's previous notice
of tentative determination of partial program adequacy (61 FR 9451,
March 8, 1996), and it is those corresponding provisions of West
Virginia's MSWLF permitting program that are being approved by EPA
today in this final determination of partial program adequacy.
Subpart A--General
Existing WVDEP requirements fully comply with 40 CFR sections
258.1, Purpose, Scope, and Applicability and Sec. 258.3, Consideration
of other Federal laws.
Subpart B--Location Restrictions
WVDEP requirements fully comply with Sec. 258.10, Airport Safety,
Sec. 258.11, Floodplains; Sec. 258.12, Wetlands; Sec. 258.13, Fault
Areas; Sec. 258.14, Seismic Impact Zones; Sec. 258.15, Unstable Areas;
and Sec. 258.16, Closure of Existing MSWLF Units.
Subpart C--Operating Criteria
WVDEP requirements fully comply with: Sec. 258.20, Hazardous Waste
Exclusion; Sec. 258.21, Daily Cover; Sec. 258.22, Disease Vectors
Control; Sec. 258.23, Explosive Gas Control; Sec. 258.24, Air Criteria;
Sec. 258.25, Access requirements; Sec. 258.26, Run-On/Run-Off Control
Systems; Sec. 258.27, Surface Water Requirements; Sec. 258.28, Liquids
Restrictions; and Sec. 258.29, Recordkeeping Requirements.
Subpart D--Landfill Design
WVDEP requirements fully comply with: Sec. 258.40, Design Criteria.
Subpart E--Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action
WVDEP requirements fully comply with: Sec. 258.50, Applicability;
Sec. 258.53, Groundwater Sampling and Analysis requirements;
Sec. 258.56, Assessment of Corrective Measures; Sec. 258.57, Selection
of Remedy; and Sec. 258.58, Implementation of the Corrective Action
Program.
Subpart F--Closure and Post-Closure Care
WVDEP requirements fully comply with:
Sec. 258.61, Post-Closure Care Requirements.
In a similar manner, EPA's previous notice of tentative
determination of partial program adequacy listed those elements of West
Virginia's MSWLF permitting program that did not satisfy provisions of
EPA's requirements at 40 CFR part 258. Those elements are again listed
below and are not being approved in this notice. However, the federal
program elements listed below are expected to be addressed in a future
notice.
Subpart A--General
The definitions listed in Sec. 258.2, Definitions.
Subpart E--Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action
The requirements of Sec. 258.51, Groundwater Monitoring Systems;
Sec. 258.54, Detection Monitoring Program; and Sec. 258.55, Assessment
Monitoring Program.
Subpart F--Final Closure
The criteria in Sec. 258.60, Closure Criteria, pertaining to the
time allowed to apply the final cover.
Subpart G--Financial Assurance Criteria
Sec. 258 Subpart G, Financial Assurance requirements. This includes
Sec. 258.70, Applicability; Sec. 258.71, Financial Assurance for
Closure; Sec. 258.72, Financial Assurance for Post-Closure Care;
Sec. 258.73, Financial Assurance for Corrective Action, Sec. 258.74,
Allowable Mechanisms and Sec. 258.75, Discounting.
C. Public Comments
The reader is advised that West Virginia modified its numbering
system for the Solid Waste Management Rule (the Rule) on June 2, 1996.
Please note that within the following discussions, both old and new
section numbers are provided for the Rule.
EPA Region III received written public comments on its tentative
determination of partial program adequacy of the West Virginia MSWLF
permitting program in April of 1996. At that time, two commenters
raised several concerns over the incompatibility of the WVDEP solid
waste regulations and the existing West Virginia Groundwater Protection
Act, WV Code Section 22-12. Their primary concern was that the
Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action Program portion of West
Virginia's Solid Waste Management Rule at 47 Code of State Regulations
(CSR) 38 section 4.11 presently 33 CSR 1 section 4.11 (as well as 40
CFR part 258, subpart E), were less protective than the West Virginia
Groundwater Protection Act. WVDEP was aware of these deficiencies and
had already addressed them by adding several references to the West
Virginia Solid Waste Management Rule during the previous legislative
rulemaking session. These references, which were added to the Solid
Waste Facility Permitting Requirements of the Rule, were sections 33
CSR 1 sections 3.1e.1.D and 3.5.b, which require compliance with the
West Virginia Groundwater Protection Act.
Another commenter questioned the wording of both 47 CSR 38 section
4.13.3 (presently 33 CSR 1 section 4.13.c) and 47 CSR 38 section
4.8.1.f (presently 33 CSR 1 section 4.8.a.6) of the Rule regarding
leachate disposal as not conforming with the EPA requirements at 40 CFR
258.28. WVDEP was again already aware of the nonconformance in section
4.13.3 (presently section 4.13.c) and added Section 4.13.c.1.B to the
Rule which incorporated the requirements of EPA regulations at 40 CFR
258.28. Section 4.8.1.f (presently section 4.8.a.6) of the Rule did not
need to be revised to conform to federal requirements since this
section, which covers the general practice of land application of
treated leachate, is not an element of EPA regulations at 40 CFR
258.28. The leachate management provisions of 40 CFR 258.28 are limited
to the placement of leachate onto or into the landfill itself for
recirculation processes. This same commenter also questioned if the
State's definition of a waste management facility boundary as defined
in 47 CSR 38 section 4.11.1.f (presently 33 CSR 1 section 4.11.a.6.A)
was in conflict with the EPA definition of the relative point of
compliance for groundwater sampling purposes. The State was again
already aware of this potential conflict and had revised 33 CSR 1
section 4.11.a.6.A to match the EPA regulation at 40 CFR 258.53(i)(1).
Two commenters noted that the presence of definitions for
``Disposal'' and ``Solid Waste Disposal,'' as well as ``Landfill'' and
``Solid Waste Landfill Facility'' in the State regulations could cause
confusion. EPA agrees that having duplicate definitions appears
unnecessary, but EPA does not believe they are in conflict with each
other or with the federal definitions. Therefore, revisions to these
definitions are not required. Concerning the comment that changes in
some definitions may limit the rule's application to landfills only, it
is noted that this is consistent with federal rules at 40 CFR part 258
which only apply to municipal solid waste landfills. Lastly, EPA does
not agree with the previous commenter that West Virginia's solid waste
recycling exemption previously under 47 CSR 38 section 2.53.7
(presently 33 CSR 1
[[Page 16526]]
section 2.114.g) conflicts with the definition of solid waste under the
federal requirements. West Virginia's recycling exemption from solid
waste refers to materials which are being recycled or reused, while
EPA's definition of solid waste refers to materials which are being
discarded. EPA's 40 CFR part 258 regulations apply to solid wastes
destined for disposal consistent with West Virginia's rules. If waste
materials are recycled or reused, by definition, they are not destined
for disposal.
Finally, another commenter raised the concern that the existing
WVDEP regulations on bonding and financial assurance exempt several
major categories of MSWLF owners. The WVDEP, in written communication
to EPA Region III, dated August 2, 1996, replied that this commenter's
interpretation of a ``non-commercial'' facility was incorrect, and
confirmed that all landfills in West Virginia which are subject to 40
CFR part 258 fall under the State's financial assurance requirements.
Additionally, EPA received a comment which expressed concern over
``weaknesses'' in the WVDEP groundwater monitoring program. EPA was
aware that the State's groundwater monitoring program was not in
compliance with EPA requirements under 40 CFR 258.51, Ground Water
Monitoring Systems; 40 CFR 258.54, Detection Monitoring Program; and 40
CFR 258.55, Assessment Monitoring Program. This is why EPA did not
propose to approve those portions of West Virginia's Groundwater
Monitoring program in its tentative determination and why EPA is not
including these components in today's final determination of partial
program adequacy. However, the Rule has since been amended to correct
those weaknesses, and EPA plans to publish a separate Federal Register
notice addressing the above-referenced regulatory revisions to West
Virginia's groundwater monitoring program.
D. Decision
As discussed in the ``Public Comment'' section of this notice,
WVDEP has responded to the public comments received in response to
EPA's notice of tentative determination of partial program adequacy.
EPA is satisfied that all of the comments and related concerns raised
as a result of the tentative determination of partial program adequacy
have been resolved to EPA's satisfaction by the WVDEP. Therefore, EPA
is granting a final determination of partial program adequacy of West
Virginia's MSWLF permitting program, for 40 CFR part 258, subparts B, C
and D, and portions of subparts A, E and F as described in Section B of
the ``Supplementary Information Section'' of this notice.
Section 4005(a) of RCRA provides that citizens may use the citizen
suit provisions of section 7002 of RCRA to enforce the federal MSWLF
criteria in 40 CFR part 258 independent of any state enforcement
program. As explained in the preamble to the final MSWLF criteria, EPA
expects that any owner or operator complying with provisions of a state
program approved by EPA should be considered to be in compliance with
the federal criteria (56 FR 50978, 50995, October 9, 1991).
Compliance With Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and
Review
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted today's action
from the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
Compliance With Executive Order 12898--Environmental Justice
EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and
is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to
enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States.
The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and
all people live in clean and sustainable communities. EPA does not
believe that today's action will have a disproportionately high and
adverse environmental or economic impact on any minority or low-income
group, or on any other type of affected community.
Compliance With Executive Order 13045--Children's Health Protection
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks,'' applies to any rule that: (1) the
Office of Management and Budget determines is ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This
rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an economically
significant rule as defined by E.O. 12866, and because it does not
involve decisions based on environmental health or safety risks.
Compliance With Executive Order 13084--Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies with consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13084 because it does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments. West Virginia is not authorized to implement the MSWLF
permitting program in Indian country.
Compliance With Executive Order 13132--Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation
[[Page 16527]]
that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct
compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the
federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This approval does not have federalism implications. It will not
have a substantial direct effect on 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, because this rule affects only one
State. This action simply approves portions of West Virginia's MSWLF
permitting program that the State has voluntarily chosen to operate.
Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not
apply.
Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as
Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's action on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as specified
in the Small Business Administration regulations; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this approval on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action
does not impose any new requirements on small entities because small
entities that are owners or operators of municipal sold waste landfills
are already subject to the regulatory requirements under the State laws
which EPA is now approving. This action merely approves for the purpose
of RCRA 4005(c) those existing State requirements.
Compliance With the Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each house of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing
today's document 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 today's action in the Federal Register.
Today's action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by section 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Compliance With the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that section 202 and 205 requirements do not
apply to today's action because this rule does not contain a federal
mandate that may result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and/or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the
private sector. Costs to State, local and/or tribal governments already
exist under the West Virginia program, and today's action does not
impose any additional obligations on regulated entities. In fact, EPA's
approval of state programs generally may reduce, not increase,
compliance costs for the private sector. Further, as it applies to the
State, this action does not impose a federal intergovernmental mandate
because UMRA does not include duties arising from participation in a
voluntary federal program.
The requirements of section 203 of UMRA also do not apply to
today's action because this rule contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Although
small governments may own or operate municipal solid waste landfills,
they are already subject to the regulatory requirements under the
existing State laws that are being approved by EPA, and, thus, are not
subject to any additional significant or unique requirements by virtue
of this program approval.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., federal
agencies must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information
request contained in a proposed rule or a final rule. This rule will
not impose any information requirements upon the regulated community.
Compliance With the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
[[Page 16528]]
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. This action does not involve
technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258
Environmental protection, administrative practice and procedure,
municipal solid waste landfills, non-hazardous solid waste, and state
permit program approval.
Authority: This notice is issued under the authority of section
2002, 4005 and 4010(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a).
Dated: March 14, 2000.
Bradley M. Campbell,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 00-7624 Filed 3-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P