[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36587-36591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17682]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-6119-9]


Washington: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste 
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Washington has applied for Final authorization of a revision 
to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has reviewed Washington's application and 
determined that its hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of 
the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Unless 
adverse written comments are received during the review and comment 
period provided in this direct final rule, EPA's decision to approve 
Washington's hazardous waste program revision will take effect as 
provided below. Washington's application for program revision is 
available for public review and comment.

DATES: This Final authorization for Washington shall be effective 
October 5, 1998, if EPA receives no adverse comment on this document by 
August 6, 1998. Should EPA receive adverse comments, EPA will withdraw 
this rule before the effective date by publishing a notice of 
withdrawal in the Federal Register. Any comments on Washington's 
program revision application must be filed by August 6, 1998. Written 
comments may also be provided to the address below by August 6, 1998. 
If no adverse comments are received by August 6, 1998, the immediate 
final rule will take effect and no further action will be taken on the 
companion proposal, which appears in the proposed rules section 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Washington program revision application and 
the materials which EPA used in evaluating the revision are available 
for inspection and copying during normal business hours at the 
following addresses: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 
Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, contact at (206) 553-
1259; and the Washington Department of Ecology, 300 Desmond Drive, 
Lacey, WA 98503, contact Patricia Hervieux, (360) 407-6756. Written 
comments should be sent to Nina Kocourek, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 10, WCM-122, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 
553-6502.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Kocourek, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, WCM-122, Seattle, WA 
98101, (206) 553-6502.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    States with final authorization under section 3006(b) of the RCRA 
42 U.S.C. 6926(b), have a continuing obligation to maintain a hazardous 
waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less 
stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program.
    Revisions to State hazardous waste programs are necessary when 
Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when 
certain other changes occur. Most commonly, State program revisions are 
necessitated by changes to EPA's regulations in Title 40 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 
279.
    The revision requested by Washington in its current application is 
not a result of a change to EPA's rules or regulations, nor is it a 
result of changes to Washington's rules and regulations. Washington's 
application for revision results from unique agreements between 
Washington, the United States and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. 
Washington seeks revision of its authorized program to include ``non-
trust lands'' within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian 
reservation (hereafter referred to as the ``1873 Survey Area'' or 
``Survey Area'') pursuant to a settlement agreement finalized in 1988 
and ratified by Congress in 1989, which allows Washington to seek 
authorization for such lands after consultation and communication with 
the Puyallup Tribe.

B. Washington

    The State of Washington initially received Final Authorization on 
January 30, 1986 (51 FR 3782), effective January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3782), 
to implement its base hazardous waste management program. Washington 
received authorization for revisions to its program on November 23, 
1987 (52 FR 35556, 9/22/87), October 16, 1990 (55 FR 33695, 8/17/90), 
November 4, 1994 (59 FR 55322, 11/4/94), and April 29, 1996 (41 FR 
7736, 2/29/96)
    On June 16, 1998, Washington submitted a final complete program 
application to revise its program to include non-trust lands within the 
1873 Survey Area of the Puyallup Tribe reservation. Today, Washington 
is

[[Page 36588]]

seeking approval of its program revision in accordance with 40 CFR 
271.21(b)(3).
    The EPA reviewed Washington's application, and now makes an 
immediate final decision, subject to receipt of adverse written 
comment, that Washington's hazardous waste program revision satisfies 
all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final Authorization. 
Consequently, EPA intends to grant Final Authorization to Washington 
for the revision.
    As provided in the Proposed Rules section of today's FR, the public 
may submit written comments on EPA's proposed final decision until 
August 6, 1998. Copies of Washington's application for program revision 
are available for inspection and copying at the locations indicated in 
the ADDRESSES section of this document.
    If EPA does not receive adverse written comment on Washington's 
program revision by the end of the comment period, the authorization of 
Washington's revision shall become effective 90 days from the date this 
document is published and EPA will take no further action on the 
companion document appearing in the Proposed Rules section of today's 
Federal Register. If the Agency does receive adverse written comment, 
it will publish a notice withdrawing this immediate final rule before 
its effective date. EPA then will address the comments in a later final 
rule based on the companion document appearing in the Proposed Rules 
section of today's Federal Register. EPA may not provide additional 
opportunity for comment. Any parties interested in commenting should do 
so in accordance with the time frame provided in today's Federal 
Register.

1. State's Revision Request

    The State of Washington applied to the EPA to revise its authorized 
hazardous waste program to include ``non-trust lands within the 1873 
Survey Area of the Puyallup Reservation,'' as defined in the Washington 
Indian (Puyallup) Land Claims Settlement, 25 U.S.C. 1773 et seq., also 
cited as the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act (hereafter 
``Settlement Act''), as part of the State's authorized program. The 
Settlement Act allocates jurisdiction according to an ``Agreement 
between the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, local Governments in Pierce 
County, the State of Washington, the United States of America, and 
certain private property owners,'' (August 27, 1988), hereafter 
referred to as the ``Settlement Agreement.'' See 25 U.S.C. 1773-1773j. 
Relying on the Congressional ratification provided in the agreement, 
the State of Washington is seeking authorization to include non-trust 
lands within the 1873 Survey Area as part of its authorized program. 
The State of Washington is not requesting authorization for any new 
federal rules with this program revision.

2. Analysis of State Submission on Revision of Program

    In support of its original interim base program application, 
Washington asserted it had jurisdiction generally over all lands within 
state borders. However for the limited purpose of supporting its 
request for this revision, the State relied solely on the Settlement 
Act, 25 U.S.C. 1773 et seq., as the basis for its assertion of 
jurisdiction over non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area.
    The Settlement Act ratified and confirmed the 1988 Settlement 
Agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Act, the ``Tribe shall retain and 
exercise jurisdiction, and the United States and the State and 
political subdivisions thereof shall retain and exercise jurisdiction, 
as provided in the Settlement Agreement and Technical Documents and, 
where not provided therein, as otherwise provided by Federal law.'' 25 
U.S.C. 1773g. The Settlement Agreement provides, for the purposes of 
the Agreement, that ``the federal, state and local governments have 
exclusive jurisdiction for the administration and implementation of 
federal, state and local environmental laws on non-trust lands within 
the 1873 Survey Area.'' Settlement Agreement, Section VIII(A)(3).
    The Settlement Agreement defines the 1873 Survey area as the ``area 
which is within the area demarked by the high water line as meandered 
and the upland boundaries, as shown on the plat map of the 1873 Survey 
of the Puyallup Indian Reservation conducted by the United States 
General Land Office and filed in 1874.'' 25 U.S.C. 1773j(1). ``Trust 
lands'' are defined in the Settlement Agreement to include both ``trust 
land'' or ``land in trust status,'' meaning ``land or any interest in 
land the title to which is held in trust by the United States for an 
individual Indian or Tribe,'' as well as ``restricted land'' or ``land 
in restricted status,'' meaning ``land the title to which is held by an 
individual Indian or Tribe and which can be alienated or encumbered by 
the owner only with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.'' 
Settlement Agreement, Section VIII(A). ``Non-trust lands'' exclude 
those lands defined as ``trust lands'' under the Settlement Agreement.
    Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, ``any federal delegation 
under the federal environmental laws within the 1873 Survey Area for 
non-trust lands will be solely to the State of Washington or its 
political subdivisions, and any federal delegation under the federal 
environmental laws within the 1873 Survey Area for trust lands will be 
solely to the Tribe.'' Settlement Agreement, Section VIII(A)(3). All 
parties to the Settlement Agreement concur that the term ``delegation'' 
was intended to encompass ``authorization'' as well as ``delegation'' 
of federal programs.
    Washington's application to extend its authorized program to the 
non-trust lands within the Survey Area, like its predecessor base 
program application, attempts to reach into Indian country without 
limiting that reach to non-Indians. Washington relies on the Settlement 
Act which ratifies the Settlement Agreement, a document which itself is 
silent on the issue of jurisdiction over Indians in Indian country on 
non-trust lands in the Survey Area. In analyzing Washington's 
application, EPA's starting place is the Settlement Agreement.
    The EPA believes the language in the Settlement Agreement with 
respect to the retention of Federal jurisdiction and the deference 
given to Federal law in the absence of other controlling law is 
significant to clarifying the authorization EPA is granting to 
Washington. Neither the EPA nor the Puyallup Tribe of Indians believes 
the Settlement Agreement changed operative federal law or superseded 
relevant case law on the issue of authority over Indians or Indian 
activities. In Washington Department of Ecology v. EPA, 752 F.2d 1465 
(9th Cir. 1985), the Ninth Circuit held that states generally were 
precluded from exercising jurisdiction over Indians in Indian country 
unless Congress clearly expressed an intention to permit such 
jurisdiction. Both EPA and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians believe the 
case is relevant to the issues of state jurisdiction related to this 
authorization.
    In that case, the Court held that ``EPA reasonably interpreted RCRA 
not to grant state jurisdiction over the activities of Indians in 
Indian country.'' Id. at 1469. The Court found this conclusion to be 
well grounded in federal Indian law and went on to say: ``States are 
generally precluded from exercising jurisdiction over Indians in Indian 
country unless Congress has clearly expressed an intention to permit 
it.'' Id. Moreover, ``the United States in its role as primary 
guarantor of Indian interests legitimately may decide that * * * tribal 
concerns can best be addressed by maintaining federal

[[Page 36589]]

control over Indian lands. EPA's interpretation of RCRA permits this 
option.'' Id. at 1470. The Court expressly did not decide ``the 
question of whether Washington is empowered to create a program 
reaching into Indian country when that reach is limited to non-
Indians.'' Id. at 1467. Washington's proposed program, which was the 
basis of the lawsuit, clearly attempted to reach Indians in Indian 
country. Id.
    The Settlement Agreement provides for federal environmental laws 
within the 1873 Survey Area on non-trust lands to be delegated solely 
to the State of Washington or its political subdivisions. Settlement 
Agreement Section VIII.A.3. In carrying out delegated authority, the 
State and Tribe agree to involve each other in a consultative manner. 
Id. The Settlement Agreement also provides that ``the State and its 
political subdivisions will retain and exercise all jurisdiction and 
governmental authority over all non-trust lands and the activities 
conducted thereon and as provided in federal law over non-Indians.'' 
Settlement at Section VIII. A.4. Based on the language of the 
Settlement Agreement as it was ratified by Congress in the Settlement 
Act, EPA believes that Washington can be authorized for the RCRA 
program over the non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area with 
limitations.
    EPA finds the Settlement Act is not a clear expression of 
congressional intent to permit the state to exercise jurisdiction over 
Indians or Indian activities on non-trust lands in the Survey Area. The 
Settlement Act ratifies the Settlement Agreement, including its 
provisions for retaining federal jurisdiction, and does not change 
applicable case law and federal Indian law concerning State 
jurisdiction over Indians and Indian activities. See Settlement 
Agreement at Section VIII.A.3 and 4. Without a clear expression of 
intent in the Settlement Agreement as ratified by the Settlement Act to 
confer jurisdiction on the State over Indians or Indian activities 
within the 1873 Survey Area, EPA finds that Washington has not 
adequately demonstrated jurisdiction over Indians or Indian activities 
within the 1873 Survey Area. The authorization will therefore be 
limited to non-trust lands within the Survey Area and will not extend 
to Indians or Indian activities on those non-trust lands. EPA will 
retain jurisdiction over trust lands and over Indians and Indian 
activities on non-trust lands within the Survey Area. EPA believes this 
is consistent with the language and intent of both the Settlement Act 
and Settlement Agreement and is otherwise consistent with federal 
Indian law.
    A final issue to be addressed in today's rule is the State of 
Washington's Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 (``Act''). By letters dated 
June 10, 1997 and November 20, 1997, EPA expressed its belief that the 
State's Act conflicted with the necessary enforcement authority 
required for authorization of federal environmental programs to the 
State. The Act provided that if a conflict existed between the Act and 
federal program delegation requirements, conflicting provisions could 
be rendered inoperative upon notice to the Governor. The Attorney 
General for the State of Washington acknowledged that the Act precluded 
the State from assessing a civil penalty except where a violation 
either was of a specific permit term or condition, was a repeat 
violation, was a violation for which the violator did not come into 
compliance within a specified period of time, or had a probability of 
placing a person in danger of death or bodily harm, causing more than 
minor environmental harm, or causing physical damage to the property of 
another in excess of one thousand dollars. Subsequently, on December 
10, 1997, in accordance with State law, RCW 43.05.902, the State 
formally notified the Governor of Washington that a conflict existed 
with the Act and certain federal laws and programs. As a result of the 
determination of an existing conflict, sections 605, 606, 607(3) and 
608 of the Act (prohibiting the State from issuing civil penalties) 
were deemed to be inoperative to several State programs including the 
Hazardous Waste Program. In reliance on this determination, EPA 
believes the conflict has been addressed by rendering inoperative those 
portions of the Act that conflicted with the State's authorized RCRA 
program and with this revision request. In addition, EPA is relying on 
the State's interpretation of another technical assistance law, RCW 
43.21A.085 and .087, finding that the law does not conflict with 
federal authorization requirements because it is a discretionary 
program, to conclude that the law does not impinge on the State's 
authority to administer federal environmental programs, including the 
RCRA program. EPA understands from the State's interpretation that 
technical assistance visits conducted by the State will not be 
conducted under the authority of RCW 43.21A.085 and .087.

C. Decision

    EPA has reviewed Washington's application and has made a decision 
that the State's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the 
requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. EPA has 
determined that the State of Washington has submitted a sufficient 
analysis to support its assertion of authority over the non-trust lands 
within the 1873 Survey Area of the Puyallup Reservation, as defined in 
the Settlement Act, except over Indians or Indian activities. 
Consequently, EPA intends to grant final authorization revising 
Washington's hazardous waste program to include the non-trust lands 
within the 1873 Survey Area of the Puyallup Reservation but limiting 
the authorization so that the revised program does not extend to 
Indians or Indian activities within the Survey Area.
    Washington will implement the revised authorized program in the 
same manner that the program is implemented elsewhere in the State. 
This includes all aspects of the authorized program such as waste 
designation requirements; generator, transporter, and recycling 
requirements; treatment, storage and disposal (TSD) facility 
requirements; all permitting procedures; corrective action 
requirements; and compliance monitoring, and enforcement procedures.
    All permits issued by U.S. EPA Region 10 on non-trust lands within 
the 1873 Survey Area prior to final authorization of this revision will 
continue to be administered by U.S. EPA Region 10 until the issuance or 
reissuance after modification of a State RCRA permit. Upon the 
effective date of the issuance, or reissuance after modification to 
incorporate authorized State requirements, of a State RCRA permit, 
those EPA-issued permit provisions which the State is authorized to 
administer and enforce will expire. HSWA provisions for which the State 
is not authorized will continue in effect under the EPA-issued permit. 
EPA will continue to implement and enforce HSWA provisions for which 
the state is not authorized.
    I conclude that Washington's application for a program revision 
meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by 
RCRA. Accordingly, Washington is granted Final Authorization to operate 
its hazardous waste program as revised. Washington now has 
responsibility for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program 
described in its revised program application, subject to the 
limitations of the HSWA and excluding from its revised program 
authority over Indians or Indian activities within the 1873 Survey 
Area. Washington also has

[[Page 36590]]

primary enforcement responsibilities for the non-trust lands within the 
1873 Survey Area except over Indians and Indian activities within the 
1873 Survey Area. EPA will retain jurisdiction over trust lands and 
over Indians and Indian activities on non-trust lands within the Survey 
Area. EPA retains the right to conduct inspections under section 3007 
of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927, and to take enforcement actions under sections 
3008, 3013 and 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6928, 6934 and 6973.

D. Codification in Part 272

    The EPA uses 40 CFR part 272 for codification of the decision to 
authorize Washington's program and for incorporation by reference of 
those provisions of the State's authorized statutes and regulations EPA 
will enforce under sections 3008, 3013 and 7003 of RCRA. Therefore, EPA 
is reserving amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart WW, until a later 
date.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of certain regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under sections 202 and 205 of the 
UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement of economic and 
regulatory alternatives analyses for proposed and final rules with 
Federal mandates, as defined by the UMRA, 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. The 
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. 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. Today's rule effects 
an administrative change by authorizing the State to implement its 
hazardous waste program in lieu of the Federal RCRA program for the 
non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area except over Indians and 
Indian activities within the 1873 Survey Area. To the extent that the 
State's hazardous waste program is more stringent than the Federal 
program, any new requirements imposed on the regulated community apply 
by virtue of state law; not because of any new Federal requirement 
imposed pursuant to today's rule.
    The requirements of section 203 of UMRA also do not apply to 
today's action. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that 
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, section 203 of the UMRA requires EPA to develop a 
small government agency plan. This rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments.

Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed 
rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, 
it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory 
flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small 
entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions). This analysis is not required, however, if 
the agency's administrator certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The EPA has determined that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Today's rule 
does not impose any federal requirements on regulated entities, whether 
large or small. Instead, today's rule effects an administrative change 
by authorizing the State to implement its hazardous waste program in 
lieu of the Federal RCRA program for the non-trust lands within the 
1873 Survey Area except over Indians and Indian activities within the 
1873 Survey Area. Today's rule carries out Congress' intent under both 
RCRA and the Settlement Act that states should be authorized to 
implement their own hazardous waste programs as long as those programs 
are equivalent to, and no less stringent than, the Federal hazardous 
waste program. In this case, to the extent that the State's hazardous 
waste program is more stringent than the Federal program, any new 
requirements imposed on the regulated community apply by virtue of 
state law; not because of any new Federal requirement imposed pursuant 
to today's rule.
    Pursuant to the provision at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Agency hereby 
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. This rule, therefore, does not 
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. This rule is 
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Compliance With Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the 
requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866.

Compliance With Executive Order 12875

    Executive Order 12875 restricts, to the extent feasible and 
permitted by law, the promulgation of any regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local or 
Tribal government, subject to criteria provided in the order. Today's 
rule does not impose a mandate upon a State, local or Tribal 
government. Today's rule effects an administrative change by 
authorizing the State to implement its hazardous waste program in lieu 
of the Federal RCRA program for the non-trust lands within the 1873 
Survey Area except over Indians and Indian activities within the Area. 
As such, the final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive 
Order 12875.

Compliance With Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that the Office of 
Management and Budget determines is ``economically significant,'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and where EPA determines the 
environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has 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

[[Page 36591]]

preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The Agency has determined that the final rule is not a covered 
regulatory action as defined in the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant and is not a health or safety risk-based 
determination. Today's rule effects an administrative change by 
authorizing the State to implement its hazardous waste program in lieu 
of the Federal RCRA program for the non-trust lands within the 1873 
Survey Area except over Indians and Indian activities within the 1873 
Survey Area. As such, the final rule is not subject to the requirements 
of Executive Order 13045.

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.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272), 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.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any voluntary standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste 
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, 
Water supply.

    Authority: This notice is issued under the authority of sections 
2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: June 24, 1998.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-17682 Filed 7-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U