[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 4, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23780-23782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11037]



[[Page 23780]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-6333-2]


Missouri: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management 
Program Revision for Corrective Action

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Missouri has applied for final authorization of the revision 
to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA). This revision package covers authorization for 
corrective action. The EPA has reviewed Missouri's application and 
determined that its hazardous waste program revision satisfied all of 
the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Unless 
adverse written comments are received during the review and comment 
period, the EPA's decision to authorize Missouri's hazardous waste 
program revision will take effect. The EPA is publishing this rule 
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a 
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. 
However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register 
publication, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve 
as the proposal to approve the revision for corrective action should 
relevant adverse comments be filed.

DATES: Final authorization for Missouri will become effective without 
further notice on July 6, 1999, if the EPA receives no adverse comment 
by June 3, 1999. Should the EPA receive such comments, the EPA will 
withdraw this rule before its effective date by publishing a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Heather Hamilton, U.S. 
EPA Region VII, ARTD/RESP, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 
66101. Copies of Missouri's program revision application are available 
for inspection and copying during normal business hours at the 
following address: Hazardous Waste Program, Missouri Department of 
Natural Resources, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0176 
(573) 751-3176.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton, U.S. EPA Region VII, 
ARTD/RESP, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101 (913) 551-
7039.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    States with final authorization under Section 3006(b) of 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 the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.

B. Missouri

    On November 20, 1985, the EPA published a Federal Register notice 
announcing its decision to grant final authorization for the RCRA base 
program to the state of Missouri which became effective December 12, 
1985 (50 FR 47740). Missouri received authorization for revisions to 
its program as follows: February 27, 1989, effective April 28, 1989 (54 
FR 8190); January 11, 1993, effective March 12, 1993 (58 FR 3497) and 
on May 30, 1997, effective July 29, 1997 (62 FR 29301). Additionally, 
the state adopted and applied for interim authorization for the 
corrective action portion of the HSWA Codification Rule (July 15, 1985, 
50 FR 28702). For a full discussion of the HSWA Codification Rule, the 
reader is referred to the Federal Register cited above. The state was 
granted interim authorization for the corrective action on February 23, 
1994, effective April 25, 1994 (50 FR 8544). Missouri has now applied 
for final authorization for the corrective action portion of the HSWA 
Codification Rule, for which it previously received interim 
authorization.
    The EPA has reviewed Missouri's application for final authorization 
for corrective action, and has made an immediate final decision that 
Missouri's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the 
requirements necessary to qualify. Consequently, the EPA intends to 
grant final authorization for corrective action to Missouri. The public 
may submit written comments on the EPA's immediate final decision up 
until June 3, 1999. Copies of Missouri's application for the program 
revision are available for inspection and copying at the locations 
identified in the ADDRESSES section of this action.
    Approval of Missouri's program revision shall become effective on 
July 6, 1999 unless an adverse comment pertaining to the state's 
revision discussed in this document is received by the end of the 
comment period. If an adverse comment is received the EPA will publish 
either: (1) A withdrawal of the immediate final decision, or (2) a 
document containing a response to comments which either affirms that 
the immediate final decision takes effect or reverses the decision.
    The state will assume lead responsibility for issuing permits for 
those program areas authorized today. For those permits which will now 
change to state lead from the EPA, the EPA will transfer copies of any 
pertinent file information to the state. The EPA will suspend issuance 
of new permits under the provisions for which the state is being 
authorized on the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will be 
responsible for enforcing the terms and conditions of federally issued 
permits while they remain in force. When the state reissues federally 
issued permits as state permits, the EPA will rely on the state to 
enforce them.

C. Decision

    I conclude that Missouri's application for program revision meets 
all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. 
Accordingly, Missouri is granted final authorization to operate its 
hazardous waste programs as revised. Missouri now has responsibility 
for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its 
borders and carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in 
its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the 
HSWA. Missouri also has primary enforcement responsibilities, although 
the EPA retains the right to conduct inspections under Section 3007 of 
RCRA and take enforcement actions under Sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 
of RCRA.

D. Administrative Requirements

1. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.''

2. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, the EPA may not issue 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

[[Page 23781]]

compliance costs incurred by those governments, or the EPA consults 
with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 
requires the EPA to provide to the OMB a description of the extent of 
the 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, E.O. 12875 
required the 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 regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local, or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 
do not apply to this rule.

3. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that the 
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 does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

4. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, the 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 incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA 
consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, 
E.O. 13084 requires the EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately 
identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the 
extent of the 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, 
E.O. 13084 requires the 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.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of Section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

5. 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 rulemaking 
for any proposed or Final rule, 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 
unnecessary, 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 authorization 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 the EPA. The EPA's authorization does not impose any 
significant additional burdens on these small entities. This is because 
the 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 EPA hereby 
certifies that this authorization will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This authorization 
approves regulatory requirements under existing state law to which 
small entities are already subject. It does not impose any new burdens 
on small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a regulatory 
flexibility analysis.

6. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, 
the EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent 
with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish 
a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs 
of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments 
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action 
approves preexisting requirements under state or local law, and imposes 
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

7. 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.

8. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs the 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 the 
EPA to provide Congress, through

[[Page 23782]]

OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the 
EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

9. 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, administrative practice and procedure, 
confidential business information, hazardous materials transportation, 
hazardous waste, Indian lands, intergovernmental regulation, penalties, 
reporting and record keeping requirements, water pollution control, 
water supply.

    Authority: This document 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: April 13, 1999.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII.
[FR Doc. 99-11037 Filed 5-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P