[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30465-30468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-14348]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 239

[FRL-6354-6]


Adequacy of State Permit Programs Under RCRA Subtitle D

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
streamline the approval process for specified States permit programs 
for solid waste disposal facilities, other than municipal solid waste 
landfills (MSWLFs), that receive conditionally exempt small quantity 
generator (CESQG) hazardous waste. States whose subtitle D MSWLF permit 
programs or subtitle C hazardous waste management programs have been 
reviewed and approved, or authorized by the Agency, are eligible for 
this streamlined approval process, if their State programs require the 
disposal of CESQG hazardous waste in suitable facilities. EPA is 
issuing an adequacy determination to the following State programs: 
Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, 
Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, 
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West 
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
    Elsewhere in the Final Rule section of today's Federal Register, 
EPA is issuing a direct final rule that sets forth the Agency's 
determination of program adequacy which will be effective in ninety 
(90) days. EPA views this as a noncontroversial action that declares 
that specific State programs for disposal of CESQG waste meet all of 
the statutory and regulatory needs set up under RCRA. Thus, we expect 
no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for this decision is in the 
preamble to the final rule notice of program adequacy. If no relevant 
adverse comments are received in response to the direct final rule, no 
further action is needed on this document. If EPA receives relevant 
adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and discuss 
the comments in a later final rule. This is your only chance to 
comment. If EPA receives relevant adverse comment concerning the 
adequacy of only certain State programs, the Agency's withdrawal of the 
direct final rule will only apply to those State programs. Comments on 
the inclusion or exclusion of one State permit program will not affect 
the timing of the decision on the other State permit programs.

DATES: Comments on today's proposed rule must be submitted on or before 
July 8, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their 
comments referencing docket number F-98-SAPF-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket 
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, 
D.C. 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the 
Arlington, VA, address listed below. Comments may also be submitted 
electronically by sending electronic mail through the Internet to: 
[email protected]. Comments in electronic format should also 
be identified by the docket number F-98-SAPF-FFFFF. All electronic 
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special 
characters and any form of encryption.
    Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential 
business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be 
submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, 
Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, 
D.C. 20460.
    Public comments are available for viewing in the RCRA Information 
Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson 
Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review 
docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment 
by calling 703 603-9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages 
from any regulatory docket at no charge. More copies cost $0.15/page. 
For information on accessing paper and electronic copies of the 
document or both, see the Supplementary Information section.
    Supporting materials for the proposed rule relating to the programs 
for Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and 
Vermont are available for viewing by contacting Cynthia Greene, US EPA 
Region 1, 90 Canal Street, Boston, MA 02203, phone 617/565-3165.
    Supporting materials for the proposed rule relating to the program 
for New York are available for viewing by contacting John Filippelli, 
US EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, phone 212/637-
4125.
    Supporting materials for the proposed rule relating to the program 
for Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia are available for viewing 
by contacting Mike Giuranna, US EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, phone 215/814-3298.
    Supporting materials for the proposed rule relating to the programs 
for Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee are 
available for viewing by contacting Patricia Herbert, US EPA Region 4, 
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104, 
phone: 404/562-8449.
    Supporting materials for the proposed rule relating to the programs 
for Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin are available 
for viewing by contacting Mary Setnicar, US EPA Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3590, phone 312/886-0976.
    Supporting materials for the proposed rule relating to the programs 
for Louisiana and Oklahoma are available for viewing by contacting 
Willie Kelley, US EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,

[[Page 30466]]

Dallas, TX 75202-2733, phone: 214/665-6760.
    Supporting materials for the proposed rule relating to the programs 
for Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming are 
available for viewing by contacting Gerald Allen, US EPA 999, Region 8, 
18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466, phone 303/312-7008.
    Supporting materials for the proposed rule relating to the programs 
for Arizona and California are available for viewing by contacting 
Steve Wall, US EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105, phone 415/744-2123.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the 
RCRA Hotline at 800 424-9346 or TDD 800 553-7672 (hearing impaired). In 
the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, call 703 412-9810 or TDD 703 
412-3323.
    For information on specific aspects of this proposed rule, contact 
Allen Geswein, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division of the 
Office of Solid Waste (mail code 5306W), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency Headquarters, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460; 703/
308-7261, [GESWEIN.ALLEN@ EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The official record for this action will be 
kept in paper form. So, EPA will transfer all comments received 
electronically into paper form and place them in the official record, 
which will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The 
official record is the paper record kept at the address in ADDRESSES at 
the beginning of this document.
    EPA responses to comments, whether the comments are written or 
electronic, will be in a notice in the Federal Register as outlined in 
DATES above or in a response to comments document placed in the 
official record for this rulemaking. EPA will not immediately reply to 
commenters electronically other than to seek clarification of 
electronic comments that may be garbled in transmission or during 
conversion to paper form, as discussed above.

Background

    As set out in detail in the related direct final rule, EPA has 
decided that specific State permit programs for facilities receiving 
CESQG waste meet the needs for program approval under RCRA section 
4005(c)(1)(C). Today's notice applies to the following State programs: 
Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, 
Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, 
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West 
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Programs developed by these States 
for permitting either hazardous waste facilities or MSWLFs have been 
reviewed and approved or authorized by the Agency. The regulatory 
programs are more comprehensive and are equal to or more stringent than 
the part 257, subpart B revised criteria for facilities receiving CESQG 
hazardous waste. The Agency has found that the above States have 
already submitted the documentation that would have been needed for the 
determination of permit program adequacy under RCRA section 
4005(c)(1)(C). Further, the Agency has found that the technical review 
conducted for either ``approval'' or ``authorization'' can substitute 
for the technical review of the standards for 40 CFR part 257, subpart 
B.

Additional Information

    For more information, see the corresponding direct final rule 
published elsewhere in the rule section of this Federal Register. If 
you wish to comment, you should review the preamble discussion in that 
section of today's Federal Register.

Related Acts of Congress and Executive Orders

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the 
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a 
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.'' It has been 
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject 
to OMB review.

B. 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 
(SBREFA) 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). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal 
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying 
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains 
EPA's determination. This rule does not impose any new burdens on small 
entities. It merely confirms existing needs for the disposal of CESQG 
waste under state law. This proposal does not impose any new cost 
burdens. I hereby certify that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule, 
therefore, does not need a regulatory flexibility analysis.

C. The Paperwork Reduction Act

    Today's proposal is in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. We found that no information is being collected 
from the States for this proposed rule, so we do not need to prepare an 
Information Collection Request (ICR).

D. 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

[[Page 30467]]

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.
    The Agency's analysis of compliance with UMRA found that today's 
proposed rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal 
governments or the private sector; thus today's rule is not subject to 
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

E. 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 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 Executive Order 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.

F. 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 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 
proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, 
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

G. Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, 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 compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
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, 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 regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's proposed 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 
Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

H. 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 by 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.''
    Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. There is no impact to tribal 
governments as the result of the State plan approvals. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

I. 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.
    The Agency does not believe that today's proposed rule granting 
State permit program approval 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.

    Authority:  This proposed rule is issued under the authority of 
sections 2002 and 4005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, 
42 U.S.C. 6912 and 6945.


[[Page 30468]]


    Dated: May 28, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-14348 Filed 6-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U