[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 24, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9110-9114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3995]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-6303-9]


Massachusetts: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste 
Management Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to grant final authorization to the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts for revisions to its hazardous waste 
program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 
Massachusetts' program revisions address two rules promulgated by the 
Environmental Protection Agency: the Toxicity Characteristics (TC) Rule 
of March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11748) which was promulgated under the 
authority of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA 
and subsequent revisions to that rule which are contained in HSWA 
Cluster II, RCRA Cluster I and RCRA Cluster III; and the Universal 
Waste Rule (UWR) of May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25492) which is contained in 
RCRA Cluster V. The EPA has reviewed The Commonwealth of Massachusetts' 
application and has made a decision, subject to public review and 
comment. The Agency finds that the State's hazardous waste program 
revisions, except for a provision which relates to the Toxicity Rule 
and exempts intact Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) from hazardous waste 
regulation, satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for 
final authorization. Thus, the EPA is proposing to approve the 
authorization of Massachusetts for the TC Rule for all wastes other 
than CRTs, and disapprove the rule as it applies to or gives the state 
federally delegated authority over CRTs. The EPA also is proposing to 
approve the authorization of Massachusetts for the UWR. The rationale 
and specific provisions for which EPA is recommending Massachusetts be 
authorized are provided in Section B of this notice. Massachusetts' 
application for program revision is available for public review. EPA 
will respond to public comments in a later final rule based upon this 
proposal. EPA may not provide further opportunity for comment. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this 
time. The proposal approvals (and partial disapproval) of 
Massachusetts' program revisions shall become effective as specified 
when the Regional Administrator's final decisions are published in the 
Federal Register.

DATES: Written comments must be received by March 26, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' revision 
application and the materials which EPA used in evaluating the revision 
(the ``Administrative Record'') are available for inspection and 
copying during normal business hours at the following addresses: 
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Library, One 
Winter Street--2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02108, business hours: 9:00 a.m. 
to 5:00 p.m., Telephone: (617) 292-5802 and EPA Region I Library, One 
Congress Street--11th Floor, Boston, MA 02114-2023, business hours: 
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Telephone: (617) 918-1990. Send written 
comments to Robin Biscaia at the address below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Biscaia, EPA Region I, One 
Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CHW), Boston, MA 02114-2023; Telephone: 
(617) 918-1642.

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. As the Federal 
hazardous waste program changes, the States must revise their programs 
and apply for authorization of the revisions. Revisions to State 
hazardous waste programs may be necessary when Federal or State 
statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other 
changes occur. Most commonly, States must revise their programs because 
of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
Parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

B. Massachusetts

    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts initially received Final 
Authorization on January 24, 1985, effective February 7, 1985 (50 FR 
3344) to implement its base hazardous waste management program. On 
January 8, 1998, Massachusetts submitted a final program revision 
application relating to the Satellite Accumulation Rule, UWR and TC 
Rule seeking authorization of its program revision in accordance with 
40 CFR 271.21. The EPA reviewed Massachusetts' application, and on 
September 30, 1998 authorized Massachusetts to implement the Satellite 
Accumulation Rule as part of its hazardous waste management program, 
effective November 30, 1998 (63 FR 52180). In that notice, EPA noted 
that it was deferring a decision on the TC Rule and the UWR pending 
resolution of an issue. The issue relates to EPA's concerns regarding 
the way in which CRTs are presently regulated by Massachusetts as a 
result of a recent amendment to its hazardous waste regulations. 
Although EPA and the State have not agreed upon a mutually satisfactory 
regulatory approach to CRTs, the EPA is now proposing to authorize the 
State for the UWR and for the TC Rule except as it relates to CRTs.
    The TC Rule was promulgated on March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11748) and 
refines and expands EPA's Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity 
Characteristics Rule promulgated on May 19, 1980 (49 FR 33084). On May 
11, 1995 (60 FR 25492) EPA promulgated the UWR which contains new 
streamlined hazardous waste management regulations governing the 
collection and

[[Page 9111]]

management of certain widely generated wastes (batteries, pesticides 
and thermostats) known as universal wastes. In addition, the regulation 
contains a provision for a petition process through which additional 
wastes can be added.
    Upon initial review of Massachusetts' regulations submitted in this 
revision application regarding the TC Rule and UWR on January 8, 1998 
(see ``Analogous State Authority'' in the table below), EPA had 
determined that the State's regulations analogous to the TC Rule and 
UWR were equivalent to, no less stringent than and consistent with the 
Federal program. The reasons for these determinations are set forth in 
the EPA's Administrative Record, which is available for public review. 
However, the State later proposed and adopted a rule which amends the 
way in which it regulates CRTs. See 310 CMR 30.104(21). For the reasons 
also set forth in EPA's Administrative Record and summarized later 
below, the EPA has determined that this provision is not equivalent to, 
and is less stringent than, the Federal program.
    The specific RCRA program revisions for which EPA intends to 
authorize the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are listed in the table 
below. The Federal requirements in the table are identified by their 
checklist numbers and rule descriptions. The following abbreviations 
are used in defining analogous state authority: MGL = Massachusetts 
General Laws; CMR = Code of Massachusetts Regulations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Description of Federal requirement and checklist
                     reference No.                                     Analogous State authority 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Checklist for the Toxicity Characteristic   MGL c 21C Secs.  4 and 6, enacted 11/9/79; 310 CMR
 Revisions as of June 30, 1994                            30.099(25) adopted 11/9/90, 30.104(13) adopted 10/17/
(74) Toxicity Characteristic Revisions: 55 FR 11798, 3/   97, 30.105 adopted 11/17/95, 30.125B adopted 11/9/90,
 29/90 as amended on 6/29/90 55 FR 26986;                 30.130 adopted 11/9/90, and 30.155B adopted 11/9/90
(80) Hydrocarbon Recovery Operations: 55 FR 40834, 10/5/  and amended 10/17/97.
 90 as amended on 2/1/91, 56 FR 3978 as amended on 4/2/  (The Massachusetts regulatory citations above are
 91, 56 FR 13406, optional rule (MA is not seeking        proposed for approval except as they relate to CRTs.)
 authorization for this provision);
(84) Chlorofluoro Refrigerants: 56 FR 5910, 2/13/91,
 optional rule, (MA is not seeking authorization for
 this provision);
(108) Toxicity Characteristics Revision; Technical
 Correction: 57 FR 30657, 7/10/92;
(117B) Toxicity Characteristic Revision: 57 FR 23062, 6/
 1/92, (correction not applicable; MA is not seeking
 authorization for this provision);
(119) Toxicity Characteristic Revision, TCLP: 57 FR
 55114, 11/24/92, optional rule (MA is not seeking
 authorization for this provision).
Universal Waste Rule Checklists 142 A-E                  MGL c 21C Secs.  4 and 6, enacted 11/9/79 and MGL c 21E
(142A) Universal Waste Rule: General Provisions, 60 FR    Sec.  6, enacted July 20, 1992; 310 CMR 30.010,
 25492-25551, 5/11/95;                                    30.130, 30.143(2), 30.340(1), 30.351(2)(b)6 and
(142B) Universal Waste Rule: Specific Provisions for      30.351(3), 30.353(2)(b)5 and 30.353(3), 30.392(8),
 Batteries, 60 FR 25492-25551, 5/11/95;                   30.393(6), 30.501(2)(e), 30.601(2)(e), 30.801(14), and
(142C) Universal Waste Rule: Specific Provisions for      30.1000 adopted on 10/17/97.
 Pesticides, 60 FR 25492-25551, 5/11/95;
(142D) Universal Waste Rule: Specific Provisions for
 Thermostats, 60 FR 25492-25551, 5/11/95;
(143E) Universal Waste Rule: Petition Provisions to Add
 a New Universal Waste, 60 FR 25492 25492-25551, 5/11/
 95;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commonwealth of Massachusetts' provisions are from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, 310 CMR
  30.000, Hazardous Waste Regulations, adopted October 17, 1997.

    The specific State regulation for which EPA intends not to 
authorize the Commonwealth of Massachusetts falls under 310 CMR 30.104, 
``Wastes Not Subject 310 CMR 30.000.'' Specifically, EPA is proposing 
to disapprove 310 CMR 30.104(21) which identifies intact CRTs as a 
waste not subject to Massachusetts' hazardous waste regulations. EPA is 
also proposing to limit its approval of the State's TC Rule regulations 
to all wastes except CRTs.
    There are aspects of Massachusetts' program which are more 
stringent or broader in scope than the federal program as noted below.
    With regard to the TCLP test under the TC Rule (40 CFR Part 261, 
Appendix II, 8.2, 8.4 and 8.5), the quality assurance/quality control 
procedures in the State's TCLP test are more stringent than the 
analogous federal procedures (310 CMR 30.155B(10)(b), (d) and (e)).
    With regard to the UWR, under the provisions of the State's UWR 
program, there are several differences related to the way in which 
universal wastes are regulated. First, as allowed by EPA's UWR (40 CFR 
part 273, Subpart G), the State program includes additional waste 
streams; i.e., mercury-containing devices and mercury containing lamps 
are included as universal wastes (310 CMR 30.1081). The inclusion of 
these additional wastes, however, is viewed as equivalent to the 
federal rule rather than broader in scope (or less stringent) as the 
federal rule allows a petition process by which additional wastes may 
be added. Massachusetts has adopted a rulemaking process rather than a 
petition process to include additional wastes under its universal waste 
program, a provision the EPA also considers equivalent.
    Another difference between the federal and State UWR programs is 
the state closure requirement (310 CMR 30.1033(4), 30.1043(5) and 
30.1061). The state includes a provision which specifies that handlers 
who cease operations shall comply with state closure requirements at 
310 CMR 30.689, which require removal of waste and site 
decontamination. This provision covers all of the State's universal 
wastes (including batteries).
    Related to the coverage of batteries under the UWR, Massachusetts, 
as required by The Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery 
Management Act of May 13, 1996 (``The Battery Act''), (Pub L. 104-142), 
has implemented state requirements governing the collection, storage 
and transportation of batteries which are identical to EPA's UWR 
requirements. There are differences from the federal requirements 
regarding how Massachusetts regulates batteries, but the EPA has 
determined that they do not

[[Page 9112]]

concern the ``collection, storage or transportation'' of batteries, 
where the State is required to be identical. For example, the EPA has 
determined that the State's requirement regarding site closure 
(described above) is not within what is preempted by the Battery Act. 
The differences, and the reasons why the EPA has determined that there 
is no preemption, are set forth in the EPA's Administrative Record, 
which is available for public review.
    For universal wastes other than batteries, the State has adopted 
requirements more stringent than the federal program. For example, 310 
CMR 30.1043(a) (b) requires large quantity handlers of universal waste 
to notify the State of their universal waste activity even though they 
may have previously provided notification for hazardous waste activity; 
the federal requirement does not require such re-notification. Also, 
310 CMR 30.1033(3) requires small quantity generators to submit a 
change of status request in anticipation of accumulating 5,000 kg or 
more of universal waste; there is no such federal requirement. Also, 
Massachusetts regulations do not allow transfer facilities (except for 
batteries) as defined in 40 CFR 273.6. Also, under the federal UWR 
program, ampules removed from thermostats are subject to the less 
restrictive UWR management standards unless they are leaking and 
exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste, in which case they must be 
managed in accordance with EPA's hazardous waste requirements (40 CFR 
Part 273, Secs. 273.13(c)(3) and 273.33(c)(3)). Massachusetts requires 
that ampules, once removed from thermostats be fully regulated as a 
hazardous waste (310 CMR 30.1034(3)(b)(7)).
    There are also aspects of Massachusetts' UWR program which are 
considered broader in scope when compared to the federal program, such 
as the State provision which requires dismantling/crushing operations 
of small and large quantity generators who recycle crushed fluorescent 
bulbs to obtain a State recycling permit (310 CMR 30.1034(5)(c)(2) and 
30.1044(5)). There is no federal permitting requirement for recycling 
activities per se, although storage prior to recycling could trigger 
the federal Part B permit requirements of 40 CFR Part 264.
    The State UWR program also has a provision regarding the household 
hazardous waste collection events in which universal wastes may be 
collected (310 CMR 30.392(8) and 30.393(6)). The regulation of this 
event is a broader-in-scope provision as there is no analogous federal 
component. However, the EPA also has determined that these State 
provisions (insofar as they cover universal wastes) do not result in 
the State program being non-equivalent to the federal program under 
RCRA or non-identical under The Battery Act.

Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs)

    As noted above, the EPA is proposing to disapprove 310 CMR 
30.104(21), which excludes intact Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) from all 
hazardous waste regulation under the Massachusetts RCRA program. 
Pursuant to 40 CFR 271.1(g), Massachusetts is required to operate a 
state RCRA program that ``at all times [is] conducted in accordance 
with the requirements of this subpart.'' As Massachusetts has adopted a 
regulation which does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 271, 
subpart A, the EPA is proposing to disapprove that regulation. In 
addition, the EPA is proposing to limit its approval of the State's TC 
Rule to all wastes other than CRTs. The TC Rule is the rule which gives 
States regulatory authority over ``TC wastes'' (i.e., wastes which 
passed the earlier EP Toxicity hazardous waste test but which now fail 
the TC Rule's TCLP test), such as many CRTs. See 55 FR 11793 (March 29, 
1990). By limiting its approval of the Massachusetts TC rule to all 
wastes other than CRTs, the EPA will make clear that it is not granting 
Massachusetts any federal regulatory authority with respect to CRTs 
that are ``TC'' wastes. By also disapproving the State CRT regulation 
itself, the EPA will make clear that the Massachusetts' approach is not 
federally authorized for any CRTs (whether they are considered a ``TC'' 
waste or a waste that was hazardous even prior to the ``TC'' Rule).
    The reasons for the proposed disapprovals are that the 
Massachusetts regulation is not equivalent to or as stringent as the 
corresponding federal requirements. That is, under 310 CMR 30.104(21), 
intact CRTs are not considered a hazardous waste and are not subject to 
any hazardous waste requirements even if they fail the TCLP test. CRTs 
which have become wastes (e.g., by being discarded or by being sent for 
recycling) and which fail the TCLP test are federal hazardous wastes 
under 40 CFR part 261. Thus, the Massachusetts regulation violates the 
requirement of 40 CFR 271.9(a) that ``[t]he State program must control 
all the hazardous wastes controlled under 40 CFR part 261. * * *'' 
EPA's further legal analysis including responses to arguments advanced 
by the State as to how its regulation is ``equivalent'' are set forth 
in the Administrative Record, which is available for public review.
    The EPA also has identified environmental problems raised by the 
Massachusetts regulation, which are further discussed in the 
Administrative Record. In particular, the EPA is concerned that 
Massachusetts has exempted intact CRTs from all hazardous waste 
requirements whether or not they are sent for recycling. EPA approval 
of the Massachusetts regulation could create loopholes, eliminating any 
federal RCRA enforcement authority regarding intact CRTs, even if an 
entity engaged in activities such as unauthorized shipments to third 
world countries or midnight dumping.
    The effect of the proposed disapprovals will be that full federal 
RCRA requirements will remain in effect in Massachusetts with respect 
to CRTs (intact or otherwise) which are hazardous wastes under the 
federal TC Rule. The federal requirements will be federally enforceable 
notwithstanding the existence under State law of less stringent State 
requirements. The proposed disapproval is unfortunate in that the EPA 
agrees that partial deregulation of CRTs being sent for bona-fide 
recycling may well be appropriate under RCRA. The EPA stands ready to 
consider partial deregulation approaches in Massachusetts such as a 
conditional exemption of CRTs being sent for recycling or inclusion of 
CRTs under the State's Universal Waste Rule. Given the current choice 
of either full RCRA regulation or total deregulation of intact CRTs, 
however, disapproval of the State's approach is the EPA's only legal 
option.
    Finally, the EPA has determined that it may at this time limit its 
disapproval to only the State CRT requirements and nevertheless approve 
the Universal Waste Rule and the rest of the TC Rule. The State meets 
the federal requirements with respect to wastes other than CRTs, and 
there are significant environmental advantages in updating the State's 
program. In particular, the State's Universal Waste Rule contains 
important measures which will encourage the recycling of other ``TC'' 
wastes such as fluorescent bulbs. The EPA recognizes that ``[p]artial 
State programs are not allowed for [State] programs operating under 
RCRA final authorization.'' 40 CFR 271.1(h). However, the EPA does not 
interpret its regulation as ruling out approvals of some parts of a 
State program before others. At this time, the EPA believes the best 
course of action is to approve the parts of the Massachusetts program 
not affected by the CRT issue while continuing to work

[[Page 9113]]

with the State to achieve a State approach equivalent to federal 
requirements with respect to CRTs.

Status of Federal Permits

    EPA will suspend the further issuance of RCRA and HSWA permits in 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for those provisions for which the 
State receives final authorization on the effective date of this 
authorization.
    EPA will retain lead responsibility for the issuance, 
administration, and enforcement of HSWA provisions in the Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts for which the State has not received authorization. In 
addition, EPA will continue to administer and enforce any RCRA and HSWA 
permits, or portions of permits, it has issued in Massachusetts until 
the State, after receiving authorization for those provisions, issues 
permits for these facilities which are equivalent to the federal 
permits, or until the State incorporates the terms and conditions of 
the federal permits into the State RCRA permits in accordance with its 
authorized program.
    Massachusetts has not sought the authority to operate the RCRA 
program in any Indian country and is not authorized by the Federal 
government to operate the RCRA program in Indian country.

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 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 or tribal governments and the 
private sector already exist under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' 
program (or with respect to regulation of CRTs, under the federal 
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 cover 
duties arising from voluntary participation in a 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 be hazardous waste generators, transporters, or 
own and/or operate TSDFs, they are already subject to the regulatory 
requirements under the existing State laws that are being authorized by 
EPA, and already are subject to direct federal regulation of CRTs, 
thus, they will not be subject to any additional significant or unique 
requirements by virtue of this action.

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), when an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for 
any proposed or final rule, it generally 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 unnecessary, however, if the agency's administrator 
(or her delegee) certifies that the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The EPA has determined that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Such small 
entities which are hazardous waste generators, transporters, or which 
own and/or operate TSDFs are already subject to the regulatory 
requirements under the existing State laws that are now being 
authorized by EPA (and to the federal laws with respect to CRTs). The 
EPA's action does not impose any significant additional burdens on 
these small entities. This is because EPA's authorization would simply 
result in an administrative change, rather than a change in the 
substantive requirements imposed on these small entities.
    Pursuant to the provision at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Agency hereby 
certifies that this authorization will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule, therefore, 
does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Compliance With Executive Order 12866

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

Compliance With Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA must follow certain procedures 
before issuing a regulation that is not required by statute and that 
creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal government, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with 
those governments. If EPA complies with consulting, Executive Order 
12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the 
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the 
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of

[[Page 9114]]

regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    This rule does not create any mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments beyond those required by the RCRA and Battery Act statutes. 
The State administers its hazardous waste program voluntarily, and any 
duties on other State, local or tribal governmental entities arise from 
that program, not from today's action. Accordingly, the requirements of 
Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

Compliance With Executive Order 13045

    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 concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has 
reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
Rather, this rule simply applies previously established health and 
safety requirements with respect to the Massachusetts state RCRA 
program.

Compliance With Executive Order 13084

    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.

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 
beyond what is already required under Massachusetts or federal law.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub L. No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards covered by 
voluntary consensus standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use 
of any voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 272

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste 
transportation, Incorporation by reference, 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: February 2, 1999.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
[FR Doc. 99-3995 Filed 2-23-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P