[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55629-55632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26191]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL-6453-2]
Georgia: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Immediate final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Georgia has applied for Final authorization of revisions to
its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Georgia's revision consists of provisions
promulgated between July 1, 1996 and June 30, 1997. The EPA has
reviewed Georgia's application and determined that its hazardous waste
program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify
for Final authorization. EPA is authorizing the state program revision
through this immediate final action. EPA is publishing this rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial action and does not anticipate adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is
publishing a separate document that will serve as a proposal to
authorize the revision should the Agency receive adverse comment.
Unless EPA receives adverse written comments during the review and
comment period, the decision to authorize Georgia's hazardous waste
program revision will take effect as provided below.
DATES: This Final authorization for Georgia will become effective
without further notice on December 13, 1999, unless EPA receives
adverse comment by November 15, 1999. Should EPA receive such comments
the Agency will publish a timely withdrawal informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Narindar Kumar, Chief, RCRA
Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, GA, 30303-3104; (404) 562-8440. Copies of the Georgia 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: Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Floyd Towers
East, Room 1154, 205 Butler Street, SE., Atlanta, Georgia 30334; and
U.S. EPA Region 4, Library, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303; (404) 562-8190.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Narindar Kumar, Chief, RCRA Programs
Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA,
30303-3104; (404) 562-8440.
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. Georgia
Georgia initially received final authorization on August 7, 1984,
effective August 21, 1984, (49 FR 31417) to implement its base
hazardous waste management program. Georgia most recently received
authorization for revisions to its program on September 18, 1998,
effective November 17, 1998, (63 FR 49852). On October 27, 1998,
Georgia submitted a final complete program revision application,
seeking authorization of its program revision in accordance with 40 CFR
271.21. The EPA reviewed Georgia's application and now makes an
immediate final decision, subject to receipt of adverse written
comment, that Georgia's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all
of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final Authorization.
Consequently, EPA intends to grant Georgia Final Authorization for the
program modifications contained in the revision.
Today, Georgia is seeking authority to administer the following
Federal requirements promulgated between July 1, 1996 through June 30,
1997:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register date and
Federal requirement page Analogous State authority \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conditionally Exempt Small 7/1/96, 61 FR 34278.......... GHWMA, O.C.G.A. Secs. 12-8-62(10) and (12),
Quantity Generator Disposal 12-8-64(1)(A) (B), (D), (E), (I) and (K), 12-
Options under Subtitle D; 8-65(a)(16) and (21); Rule 391-3-11-.07(1).
Checklist 153.
Consolidated Organic Air Emission 12/6/94, 59 FR 62926; 5/19/ GHWMA, O.C.G.A. Secs. 12-8-64(1)(A), (B),
Standards for Tanks, Surface 95, 60 FR 26828; 9/29/95, 60 (C), (D), (E), and (F), 12-8-65(a)(3), (16)
Impoundments, and Containers; FR 50428; 11/13/95, 60 FR and (21), 12-8-66; Rules 391-3-11-.02(1),
Checklist 154. 56953; 2/9/96, 61 FR 4911; 6/ 391-3-11-.07(1), 391-3-11-.08(1), 391-3-11-
5/96, 61 FR 28509; 11/25/96, .10(1) and (2), and 391-3-11-.11(3)(h) and
61 FR 59950. (5)(f); Georgia Quality Air Act, O.C.G.A.
Sec. 12-9-1 et seq., at O.C.G.A. Sec. 12-9-
5-(b)(1) and (3); Rules for Air Quality
Control, Chapter 391-3-1, at Rule 391-3-1-
.01(nnnn) effective June 15, 1998.
[[Page 55630]]
Land Disposal restrictions Phase 1/14/97, 62 FR 1997.......... GHWMA, O.C.G.A. Secs. 12-8-62(14), 12-8-
III--Emergency Extension of the 64(1)(A), (B), (D), (F), and (I), 12-8-
KO88 Capacity Variance; Checklist 65(a)(16) and (21); Rule 391-3-11-.16.
155.
Military Munitions Rule: Hazardous 2/12/97, 62 FR 6650.......... GHWMA, O.C.G.A. Secs. 12-8-62(10), (16),
Waste Identification and (20), 12-8-64(1)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E),
Management; Explosives (F), (G), and (I), 12-8-65(a)(16) and (21),
Emergencies; Manifest Exemption 12-8-66, 12-8-67, 12-8-75; Rules 391-3-11-
for Transport of Hazardous waste .02(1), 391-3-11-.07(1), 391-3-11-.08(1),
on Right-of-Ways on Contiguous 391-3-11-.09, 391-3-11-.10(1), 391-3-11-
Properties; Checklist 156. .10(2), 391-3-11-.10(3), 391-3-11-.11(1)(a),
391-3-11-.11(7)(d).
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase 5/12/97, 62 FR 26018......... GHWMA, O.C.G.A. Secs. 12-8-62(10), (13),
IV--Treatment Standards for Wood (14), (20), (23), 12-8-64(1)(A), (B), (D),
Preserving Wastes, Paperwork (E), (F), (I), (J), (K), (L), 12-8-65(a)(16)
Reduction and Streamlining; and (21), (25); Rules 391-3-11-.07(1), 391-3-
Checklist 157. 11-.16.
Testing and Monitoring Activities 6/13/97, 62 FR 32462......... GHWMA, O.C.G.A. Secs. 12-8-62(9), (10), and
Amendment III; Checklist 158. (13), 12-8-64(1)(A), (D), and (F), 12-8-
65(a)(16) and (21); Rules 391-3-11-.02(1),
391-3-11-.10(1), (2), (3).
Conformance with the Carbamate 6/17/97, 62 FR 32977......... GHWMA, O.C.G.A. Secs. 12-8-62(9), (10),
Vacatur; Checklist 159. (14), (20) and (23), 12-8-64(1)(A), (B),
(D), (F) and (I), 12-8-65(a)(16) and (21);
Rule 391-3-11.07(1) and 391-3-11-.16.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Georgia provisions are from the Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations effective September 26,
1985 and recently revised December 24, 1997.
EPA shall administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits, or portions
of permits that contain conditions based upon the Federal program
provisions for which the State is applying for authorization and which
were issued by EPA prior to the effective date of this authorization.
EPA will suspend issuance of any further permits under the provisions
for which the State is being authorized on the effective date of this
authorization.
Georgia is not authorized to operate the federal program on Indian
lands. This authority remains with EPA unless provided otherwise in a
future statute or regulation.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
this as a noncontroversial program revision and do not anticipate
adverse comment. However in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve
as the proposal to authorize the revision if we receive adverse
comments. This authorization will become effective without further
notice on December 13, 1999, unless EPA receives adverse comment by
November 15, 1999. Should EPA receive such comments it will publish a
timely withdrawal informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final
action based on the proposed rule. EPA may not provide additional
opportunity for comment. Any parties interested in commenting must do
so at this time.
The public may submit written comments on EPA's immediate final
decision until November 15, 1999. Copies of Georgia's application for
program revision are available for inspection and copying at the
locations indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this document. The
ADDRESSES section also indicates where to send written comments on this
action.
C. Decision
I conclude that Georgia's application for program revision
authorization meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA. Accordingly, EPA grants Georgia Final
Authorization to operate its hazardous waste program as revised.
Georgia now has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian country) and
for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its
revised program application, subject to the limitations of HSWA.
Georgia also has primary enforcement responsibilities, although EPA
retains the right to conduct inspections under section 3007 of RCRA,
and to take enforcement actions under sections 3008, 3013 and 7003 of
RCRA.
D. Codification in Part 272
The EPA uses 40 CFR part 272 for codification of the decision to
authorize Georgia's program and for incorporation by reference of those
provisions of its statutes and regulations that EPA will enforce under
sections 3008, 3013 and 7003 of RCRA. EPA reserves amendment of 40 CFR
part 272, subpart II until a later date.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
[[Page 55631]]
EPA has determined that section 202 and 205 requirements do not
apply to today's action because this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and/or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the
private sector. Costs to State, local and/or tribal governments already
exist under the Georgia program, and today's action does not impose any
additional obligations on regulated entities. In fact, EPA's approval
of State programs generally may reduce, not increase, compliance costs
for the private sector. Further, as it applies to the State, this
action does not impose a Federal intergovernmental mandate because UMRA
does not include duties arising from participation in a voluntary
federal program.
The requirements of section 203 of UMRA also do not apply to
today's action because this rule contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Although
small governments may 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, thus, are not subject to any additional significant or unique
requirements by virtue of this program approval.
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 EPA. The EPA's authorization 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 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.
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 Executive Order 12866.
Compliance With 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
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 regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
This rule does not create a mandate on State, local, or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. 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 this 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 involve decisions based on environmental health or safety
risks.
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,
[[Page 55632]]
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. Georgia is not authorized to implement the RCRA hazardous
waste program in Indian country. This action has no effect on the
hazardous waste program that EPA implements in Indian country within
the State.
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''), 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 action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
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 action 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).
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 99-26191 Filed 10-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P