[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50963-50966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-24594]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 281

[FRL--7071-3]


Hawaii: Tentative Approval of State Underground Storage Tank 
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of tentative determination on application 
of State of Hawaii for final approval, public hearing and public 
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The State of Hawaii has applied for approval of its 
underground storage tank program for petroleum and hazardous substances 
under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Hawaii 
application and has made the tentative decision that Hawaii's 
underground storage tank program for petroleum and hazardous substances 
satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for approval. 
The Hawaii application for approval is available for public review and 
comment. A public hearing will be held to solicit comments on the 
application, unless insufficient public interest is expressed.

DATES: A public hearing is scheduled for November 13, 2001, unless 
insufficient public interest is expressed in holding a hearing. EPA 
reserves the right to cancel the public hearing if sufficient public 
interest is not communicated to EPA in writing by November 5, 2001. EPA 
will determine by November 9, 2001, whether there is sufficient 
interest to hold the public hearing. The State of Hawaii will 
participate in the public hearing held by EPA on this subject. Written 
comments on the Hawaii application, as well as requests to present oral 
testimony, must be received by the close of business on November 5, 
2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Hawaii application are available at the 
following addresses for inspection and copying:
    U.S. EPA Region 9, Library, 13th Floor, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105, Phone: (415) 744-1510, 9 am through 4 pm, 
Pacific Daylight Savings Time; U.S. EPA Region 9 Pacific Islands 
Contact Office (PICO), 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 5-152, Honolulu, HI 
96850, Phone number: (808) 541-2721, 7 am through 3:30 pm, Hawaii 
Standard Time; Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH), Solid and Hazardous 
Waste Branch, 919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 212, Honolulu, Hawaii 
96814, Phone: (808) 586-4226, 8 am through 4 pm, Hawaii Standard Time; 
HDOH, Environmental Management Division, 79-7595 Haukapila Street, 
Kealakekua, HI 96750, Phone number: (808) 322-7011, 8 am through 4 pm, 
Hawaii Standard Time; HDOH, Environmental Health Facility, 1582 
Kamehameha Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720, Phone number: (808) 933-0917, 8 am 
through 4 pm, Hawaii Standard Time; HDOH, Maui District Health Office, 
54 High Street, Wailuku, HI 96793, Phone number: (808) 984-8230, 8 am 
through 4 pm, Hawaii Standard Time; HDOH, Kauai District Health Office, 
3040 Umi Street, Lihue, HI 96766, Phone number: (808) 241-3323, 8 am 
through 4 pm, Hawaii Standard Time; or U.S. EPA Docket Clerk, Office of 
Underground Storage Tanks, c/o RCRA Information Center, 1235 Jefferson 
Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202, Phone: (703) 603-9231, 9 am 
through 5 pm, Eastern Daylight Savings Time.
    Written comments should be sent to Ms. April Katsura of the 
Underground Storage Tank Program Office, U.S. EPA Region 9, Mail Code 
WST-8, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
    Unless insufficient public interest is expressed, EPA will hold a 
public hearing on the State of Hawaii's application for program 
approval on November 13, 2001 at 6 p.m., Hawaii Standard Time, at the 
Kawananakoa Middle School, 49 Funchal Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, 
Phone: (808) 587-4430. Anyone who wishes to learn whether or not the 
public hearing on the State's application has been canceled should 
telephone one of the following contacts on or before November 9, 2001:
    Ms. April Katsura of the Underground Storage Tank Program Office, 
U.S. EPA Region 9, Mail Code WST-8, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105, Phone: (415) 744-2024; or
    Mr. Steven Y.K. Chang, P.E., Manager, Solid and Hazardous Waste 
Branch, Hawaii Department of Health, 919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 212, 
Honolulu, Hawaii, 96814, Phone: (808) 586-4226.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Ms. April Katsura of the Underground 
Storage Tank Program Office, U.S. EPA Region 9, Mail Code WST-8, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, Phone: (415) 744-
2024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why Are State Programs Approved?

    Section 9004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c, authorizes EPA to approve 
State underground storage tank programs to operate in the State in lieu 
of the Federal underground storage tank (UST) program, subject to the 
authority retained by EPA in accordance with RCRA. Program approval may 
be granted by EPA pursuant to RCRA section 9004(b), if the Agency finds 
that the State program: (1) Is ``no less stringent'' than the Federal 
program for the seven elements set forth at RCRA section 9004(a)(1) 
through (7); (2) includes the notification requirements of RCRA section 
9004(a)(8); and (3) provides for adequate enforcement of compliance 
with UST standards of RCRA section 9004(a). Note that RCRA sections 
9005 (on information-gathering) and 9006 (on federal enforcement) by 
their terms apply even in states with programs approved by EPA under 
RCRA section 9004. Thus, the Agency retains its authority under RCRA 
sections 9005 and 9006, 42 U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e, and other applicable 
statutory and regulatory provisions to undertake inspections and 
enforcement actions in approved states. With respect to such an 
enforcement action, the Agency will rely on federal sanctions, federal 
inspection authorities, and federal procedures rather than the state 
authorized analogues to these provisions.

II. What Has EPA Tentatively Decided With Respect to Hawaii's 
Application for Program Approval?

    EPA has reviewed the Hawaii application, and has tentatively 
determined that the State's UST program for petroleum and hazardous 
substances meets all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final 
approval.
    The State of Hawaii submitted its draft state program approval 
application to EPA by letter dated February 23, 2000. After reviewing 
the package, EPA submitted comments to the State for review. Hawaii 
submitted its complete state program approval application for EPA's 
tentative approval on May 23, 2001.
    On January 12, 2000, Hawaii adopted UST program regulations for 
petroleum and hazardous substance underground storage tanks. These 
regulations became effective on January 28, 2000. Prior to the adoption 
of the regulations, Hawaii

[[Page 50964]]

solicited public comment and held a public hearing on the draft UST 
program regulations.
    EPA will hold a public hearing on its tentative decision on 
November 13, 2001, unless insufficient public interest is expressed. 
The public may also submit written comments on EPA's tentative 
determination until November 5, 2001. Copies of the Hawaii application 
are available for inspection and copying at the locations indicated in 
the addresses section of this document.
    EPA will consider all public comments on its tentative 
determination received at the hearing, or received in writing during 
the public comment period. Issues raised by those comments may be the 
basis for a decision to deny final approval to Hawaii. EPA expects to 
make a final decision on whether or not to approve Hawaii's program 
within 60 days of the public hearing, and will give notice of it in the 
Federal Register. The document will include a summary of the reasons 
for the final determination and a response to all major comments.

III. Where Are the State Rules Different From the Federal Rules?

    States may enact laws more stringent than their federal 
counterparts. See RCRA section 9008, 42 U.S.C. 6991b. In addition, 
states may enact laws which are broader in scope than their federal 
counterparts; that is, the state laws have no counterpart in the 
federal UST program. This authority is specifically codified in 40 CFR 
281.12(a)(3). State requirements that go beyond the scope of the 
Federal program are not part of the authorized program and EPA cannot 
enforce them. Although you must comply with these requirements in 
accordance with Hawaii law, they are not RCRA requirements. The 
statutory and regulatory provisions we have tentatively decided to 
authorize are found generally at Hawaii Revised Statutes (``HRS'') 
sections 342L-1 through 342L-53 and Hawaii Administrative Rules 
(``HAR'') 11-281-01 through 11-281-131. However, we consider the 
following State requirements, which pertain to the provisions involved 
in this tentative decision, to go beyond the scope of the Federal 
program. The following analysis of which requirements are broader in 
scope differs in some ways from the requirements which Hawaii 
identified as being broader in scope than the Federal program in its 
application.
    1. Hawaii's definition of ``owner,'' set forth at HRS section 342L-
1, is broader in scope than the Federal definition of ``owner'' (see 
RCRA section 9001(3), 42 U.S.C. 6991(3), and 40 CFR 280.12) to the 
extent that it includes persons who do not participate in the 
management of an UST or tank system who are otherwise not engaged in 
petroleum production, refining and marketing, but who hold indicia of 
ownership primarily to protect a security interest in the tank or tank 
system. More specifically, Hawaii's definition is broader in scope to 
the extent it requires such persons to comply with the technical 
standards and financial responsibility requirements since such persons 
are excluded from those requirements of the Federal UST program 
pursuant to 40 CFR 280.200 through 280.230.
    2. Hawaii's UST program contains permitting requirements. This 
aspect of Hawaii's program is broader in scope than the Federal program 
since the Federal UST program does not include analogous permitting 
requirements. The following provisions pertain to Hawaii's permitting 
requirements: HRS section 342L-1 (definition of ``permit''); HRS 
section 342L-4 (permits procedures); HRS section 342L-31 (permit 
requirements and transfer of permit); HAR 11-281-03 (definitions of 
``installation,'' ``operate'' and ``permit''); HAR 11-281-23 (permit 
requirement); HAR 11-281-24(a) (application for a permit); HAR 11-281-
24(b) (permit fee); HAR 11-281-24(c)(3) (information required in permit 
application); HAR 11-281-24(c)(4) (information required in permit 
application); HAR 11-281-25(a) (5 year permit to install and operate); 
HAR 11-281-25(b) (1 year to install UST); HAR 11-281-26 (permit 
renewals); HAR 11-281-27 (action on and timely approval of permit 
application); HAR 11-281-28 (permit conditions); HAR 11-281-29 
(modification of permit and notice of change); HAR 11-281-30 
(revocation or suspension of permit); HAR 11-281-31 (change in owner or 
operator for a permit); HAR 11-281-131 (Appendices II [Application for 
an UST Permit], IV [Application for Renewal of an UST Permit, June 
1999], and V [Application for Transfer of an UST Permit, June 1999]); 
and the provisions at HRS section 342L-8(b) (enforcement orders may 
include suspension, modification or revocation of permit), HAR 11-281-
34 (maintenance of permit or variance), 11-281-35 (fees), and HAR 11-
281-45(c)(6) (maintenance of permit documentation), as they apply to 
permits.
    3. Hawaii's definitions of ``regulated substance'' at HRS section 
342L-1 and HAR 11-281-03 are broader in scope than the Federal 
definitions of ``regulated substance'' (see RCRA section 9001(2), 42 
U.S.C. 6991(2), and 40 CFR 280.12). These definitions are broader in 
scope to the extent that Hawaii includes substances that are designated 
as regulated substances by the Hawaii Department of Health Services, 
pursuant to subsection (3) of Hawaii's definition of the term, which 
are neither (a) ``any substance defined in section 101(14) of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) of 1980 (but not including any substance regulated as a 
hazardous waste under subtitle C [of RCRA]'' or (b) ``[p]etroleum, 
including crude oil or any fraction thereof that is liquid at standard 
conditions of temperature and pressure (60 degrees Fahrenheit and 14.7 
pounds per square inch absolute).'' (See 40 CFR 280.12.)
    4. Hawaii's UST program contains provisions which allow the State 
to grant variances. The Hawaii Attorney General's Office has indicated 
that such variances may be granted where State rules are broader in 
scope than the Federal regulations. To the extent that such variances 
are granted, and the resulting requirements imposed pursuant to such 
variances are broader in scope than the Federal UST requirements, the 
requirements imposed by such variances will not be federally 
enforceable as part of the authorized State program. However, to the 
extent that any variances are issued for aspects of the State's program 
which result in the imposition of requirements which are merely more 
stringent than the Federal UST requirements, as opposed to broader in 
scope, the resulting requirements of such variances will be federally 
enforceable as part of the authorized State program. The following 
provisions pertain to Hawaii's variance requirements: HRS section 342L-
1 (definition of ``variance''); HRS section 342L-5 (variance allowed); 
HRS section 342L-6 (procedures for variances); HAR 11-281-03 
(definition of ``variance''); HAR 11-281-32 (variance allowed); HAR 11-
281-33 (variance applications); 11-281-131 (Appendix VI [Application 
for UST Variance, June 1999]); and the provisions at HRS section 342L-
8(b) (enforcement order may include suspension, modification or 
revocation of variance), HAR 11-281-34 (maintenance of variance), 11-
281-35 (fees), and HAR 11-281-45(c)(6) (maintenance of variance 
documentation), as they apply to variances.
    5. HRS section 342L-14, which authorizes the Director of the 
Department of Health to establish certain fees, is broader in scope 
than the Federal UST program, which does not include an analogous 
provision.

[[Page 50965]]

    6. HRS sections 342L-50 through 342L-53, which relate to Hawaii's 
response program for petroleum releases, are broader in scope than the 
Federal UST program to the extent that Hawaii includes in the 
definition of ``operator'' applicable to these provisions those persons 
who do not participate in the management of an UST or tank system who 
are otherwise not engaged in petroleum production, refining and 
marketing, but who hold indicia of ownership primarily to protect a 
security interest in the tank or tank system. Such persons are excluded 
from the Federal definition of ``operator,'' for the purposes of the 
Federal response program for petroleum releases, pursuant to RCRA 
section 9003(h)(9), 42 U.S.C. 6991b(h)(9).
    7. EPA and the State of Hawaii each exclude from their definitions 
of the term ``underground storage tank'' or ``UST,'' farm or 
residential tanks of 1,100 gallons or less capacity used for storing 
motor fuel for noncommercial purposes. See 40 CFR 280.12 and HAR 11-
281-03, respectively. However, Hawaii's definitions of ``farm tank'' 
and ``underground storage tank'' or ``UST'' each indicate that a farm 
tank must be used only for farm related purposes. Hence, Hawaii's 
program is broader in scope than the Federal program to the extent that 
Hawaii regulates 1,100 gallon capacity or less USTs storing motor fuel 
on farms when such USTs are not used for either farm or commercial 
purposes.
    8. Hawaii's definition of the term ``reportable quantity'' at HAR 
11-281-03 and the requirements relating to reporting and clean up of 
spills and overfills of hazardous substances at HAR 11-281-64 are 
broader in scope than the Federal requirement relating to reporting and 
clean up of spills or overfills of hazardous substances under 40 CFR 
280.53. The Hawaii threshold ``reportable quantity'' for 
trichloropropane is 10 lbs. Since the Federal program does not require 
reporting of releases of trichloropropane, the State's program is 
broader than the Federal program to this limited extent.
    9. Hawaii's requirement for posting of signs, which is found at HAR 
11-281-73, requires owners and operators to post signs around the 
perimeter of a site where contamination poses an immediate health risk 
or where contaminated media is expose to the surface, if the Department 
of Health determines that the posting of such signs is appropriate. 
This requirement is broader in scope than the Federal UST program, 
which does not include an analogous provision.
    In addition, EPA is not proposing to authorize HRS section 342L-16, 
which pertains to the ``nonliability of department personnel,'' or HRS 
section 342L-23, which requires the Director of the Department of 
Health to establish a directory of UST service providers. These 
provisions are not a required part of a federally authorized UST 
program nor are they considered enforcement-related or procedural 
requirements. Furthermore, these provisions do not impose obligations 
on UST owners or operators.

IV. Administrative Requirements

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.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or tribal 
governments or the private sector. The UMRA generally excludes from the 
definition of ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' duties that arise 
from participation in a voluntary Federal program. Hawaii's 
participation in EPA's state program approval process under RCRA 
Subtitle I is voluntary. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    In addition, EPA has determined that this rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. Although small governments may own and/or operate 
underground storage tanks, they are already subject to the regulatory 
requirements under the existing State requirements that EPA is now 
tentatively approving and, thus, are not subject to any additional 
significant or unique requirements by virtue of this action. Thus, the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA also do not apply to today's 
rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's action on 
small entities, ``small entity'' is defined as: (1) A small business as 
specified in the Small Business Administration regulations; (2) a small 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district or special district with a population of less than 
50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action 
does not impose any new requirements on small entities because small 
entities that own and/or operate underground storage tanks in Hawaii 
are already subject to Hawaii's underground storage tank requirements 
which EPA is now tentatively approving. This action

[[Page 50966]]

merely tentatively approves, for the purpose of RCRA section 9004, 
those existing State requirements.

Compliance With Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 
Review)

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

Compliance With Executive Order 13045 (Children's Health)

    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.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it approves a state program.

Compliance With Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments)

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. As an initial 
matter, there are no federally-recognized Indian tribes within the 
State of Hawaii. The authorization of Hawaii's UST program will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Even if Indian Country existed within the State, Hawaii would not be 
approved to implement the RCRA underground storage tank program in 
Indian country and this action would have no effect on the underground 
storage tank program that EPA would implement in Indian country within 
the State. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed 
rule.

Compliance With Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. This action does not have 
federalism implications. It will not have a substantial direct effect 
on States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
because it affects only one State. This action simply provides EPA 
approval of Hawaii's voluntary proposal for its State underground 
storage tank program to operate in lieu of the Federal underground 
storage tank program in that State. Thus, the requirements of section 6 
of the Executive Order do not apply.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 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 is 
not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Hazardous materials, State program approval, Underground storage tanks.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of Section 
9004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 
6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: September 21, 2001.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-24594 Filed 10-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P