[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 49 (Friday, March 12, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11801-11813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-5644]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 262 and 271

[FRL-7634-4]


Massachusetts: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste 
Management Program Revisions; State-Specific Modification to Federal 
Hazardous Waste Regulations, Pursuant to ECOS Program Proposal; 
Extension of Site-Specific Regulations for New England Universities' 
Laboratories XL Project

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today's action consists of three distinct but related final 
rulemakings briefly characterized here and further discussed in the 
supplementary information section of this rule. First, the EPA is 
granting final authorization to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), for revisions 
to the State's hazardous waste program which meet the standard EPA 
regulatory requirements for authorization of State programs. The 
revisions consist of updated State regulations covering hazardous waste 
definitions and miscellaneous provisions, provisions for the 
identification and listing of hazardous wastes, and standards for 
hazardous waste generators, which correspond to RCRA Consolidated 
Checklists C1, C2 and C3, respectively. These State regulations have 
been updated to address most Federal RCRA requirements listed in 
Checklists C1, C2 and C3 through at least July 1, 1990.
    Second, the State regulations submitted for authorization also 
include comprehensive regulations governing hazardous wastes being 
recycled on-site by generators. These regulations do not meet the 
standard EPA requirements for State authorization but have been 
determined by the EPA to meet the RCRA statutory test of protecting 
human health and the environment. The EPA also has determined that 
these Massachusetts regulations are at least as environmentally 
protective overall as the Federal program. Thus the EPA is today making 
a State-specific modification to the Federal hazardous waste 
regulations to enable the EPA to authorize these Massachusetts 
regulations, pursuant to a proposal for flexibility submitted by the 
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) under the 
program established by the Joint EPA/State Agreement To Pursue 
Regulatory Innovation between the EPA and the Environmental Council of 
States (ECOS program). As part of this same rulemaking, the EPA is also 
today authorizing these Massachusetts hazardous waste recyclable 
materials regulations.
    Third, the EPA is today extending the expiration date of site-
specific regulations previously adopted by the EPA under the eXcellence 
and Leadership program (Project XL) allowing alternative RCRA generator 
requirements to be followed for laboratories at certain universities in 
Massachusetts (and Vermont). As part of this same rulemaking, the EPA 
is also today authorizing the Massachusetts regulations which track 
these EPA regulations. The EPA already has authorized the Vermont 
regulations which track these EPA regulations and expects to extend the 
authorization of the Vermont regulations through a separate rulemaking.
    On October 21, 2003, the EPA proposed to take these three actions. 
No negative public comments were received in response to the proposal.

DATES: This final rulemaking, covering both the revisions to the 
federal regulations and the EPA's authorization of the State 
regulations, is effective immediately without further notice as of 
March 12, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Dockets containing copies of the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts' revision application, the materials which the EPA used 
in evaluating the revision, and materials relating to the State-
specific and site-specific Federal regulation changes, have been 
established at the following two locations: (i) Massachusetts 
Department of Environmental Protection, Business Compliance Division, 
One Winter Street--8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108, business hours Monday 
through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., tel: (617) 556-1096; and (ii) EPA 
Region I Library, One Congress Street--11th Floor, Boston, MA 02114-
2023, business hours Monday through Thursday 10 a.m.-3 p.m., tel: (617) 
918-1990. Records in these dockets are available for inspection and 
copying during normal business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit, 
EPA Region I, One Congress St., Suite 1100 (CHW), Boston, MA 02114-
2023, tel: (617) 918-1642, e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As indicated above, the EPA published a 
Federal Register notice on October 21, 2003 (68 FR 60060) proposing to 
take the three actions which are the subject of this notice. No 
negative public comments were received by the EPA in response to the 
proposal. Thus the EPA is today taking final actions in accordance with 
its prior proposal. Note that the EPA proposed to approve the

[[Page 11802]]

State regulations when they were in proposed form, and conducted its 
public comment process simultaneously with the State public comment 
process. The State regulations recently were finalized and submitted 
for authorization by the EPA.
    Today's federal rulemaking includes granting final authorization 
under 40 CFR part 271 to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for 
revisions to its hazardous waste program under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act. No changes to 40 CFR part 271 result 
from the authorization of State regulations under that part. Today's 
federal rulemaking also includes making changes to the federal 
regulations in 40 CFR part 262, in connection with Massachusetts' ECOS 
program proposal and the XL project. The resulting changes to 40 CFR 
part 262 are set out at the end of this document.
    In part I, below, this document will discuss the updated State RCRA 
regulations which are being authorized in accordance with the standard 
EPA State authorization regulations in 40 CFR part 271.
    In part II, below, this document will discuss the State-specific 
change to the Federal regulations in 40 CFR part 262 being made under 
the ECOS program to allow authorization of the Massachusetts hazardous 
waste recyclable materials regulations, and the resulting authorization 
of the recyclable materials regulations.
    In part III, below, this document will discuss the extension of the 
expiration date in 40 CFR part 262 of the New England Universities' 
Laboratories project XL regulations, and the authorization of the 
Massachusetts project XL regulations.
    In part IV, below, this document will assess the effects of these 
decisions, in accordance with various statutes and executive orders.

I. Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program 
Revisions; Standard Authorization:

A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?

    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 EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

B. What Has Massachusetts Previously Been Authorized for Under RCRA?

    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. This 
authorized base program generally tracked Federal hazardous waste 
requirements through July 1, 1984. In addition, the EPA previously has 
authorized particular Massachusetts regulations which address several 
of the EPA requirements adopted after July 1, 1984. Specifically, on 
September 30, 1998, the EPA authorized Massachusetts to administer the 
Satellite Accumulation rule, effective November 30, 1998 (63 FR 52180). 
Also, on October 12, 1999, the EPA authorized Massachusetts to 
administer the Toxicity Characteristics rule (except with respect to 
Cathode Ray Tubes), and the Universal Waste rule, effective immediately 
(64 FR 55153). Finally, on November 15, 2000, the EPA granted interim 
authorization for Massachusetts to regulate Cathode Ray Tubes under the 
Toxicity Characteristics rule through January 1, 2003, effective 
immediately (65 FR 68915). This interim authorization subsequently was 
extended to run through January 1, 2006 (67 FR 66338, October 31, 
2002).

C. What Decisions Is the EPA Making in This Standard Authorization?

    The EPA is authorizing Massachusetts regulations which will update 
the State's hazardous waste program. The State regulations cover 
hazardous waste definitions and miscellaneous provisions, provisions 
for the identification and listing of hazardous wastes, and standards 
for hazardous waste generators, which correspond to RCRA Consolidated 
Checklists C1, C2 and C3, respectively. The State regulations have been 
updated to address most Federal RCRA requirements listed in Checklists 
C1, C2 and C3 through at least July 1, 1990. The EPA is authorizing 
these changes. In addition to addressing requirements in Checklists C1, 
C2 and C3 not previously covered by authorized State regulations, the 
State regulations make some changes to the previously authorized 
Satellite Accumulation, Universal Waste rule and Toxicity 
Characteristics rule regulations. The EPA also is authorizing these 
changes. In addition, the State regulations include some State 
initiated changes to previously authorized Base Program regulations 
(i.e., changes made for reasons other than addressing new EPA 
requirements). The EPA also is authorizing these changes insofar as 
they address hazardous waste definitions and miscellaneous provisions, 
provisions for the identification and listing of hazardous wastes, and 
standards for hazardous waste generators, and except as specified 
below. Finally, the State regulations include provisions which track 
the 180 Day Accumulation Time rule for metal finishing industry waste 
water treatment sludges (F006) being recycled, adopted by the EPA on 
March 6, 2000 (65 FR 12397). The EPA also is authorizing these 
provisions.
    The specific RCRA program revisions for which the EPA is 
authorizing 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 abbreviation is 
used in defining analogous state authority: CMR = Code of Massachusetts 
Regulations. The citations in the table are to the CMR provisions as 
recently adopted/amended by the MADEP in Massachusetts Register No. 994 
(February 27, 2004).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Description of Federal requirements and
       checklist reference numbers           Analogous state authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Checklist 1 through July 1,  310 CMR 30.001-30.009; 30.010
 1990, covering base program               (definitions), except for
 requirements in 40 CFR part 260, and      definitions relating to
 requirements in the following rule        program elements not being
 checklists included in part 260:          authorized, namely ``mixed
                                           waste,'' ``municipal or
                                           industrial wastewater
                                           treatment facility permitted
                                           under M.G.L. c. 21, sec. 43''
                                           and definitions relating to
                                           used oil program; 30.011-
                                           30.030.
(5) National Uniform Manifest
 (definitions), 49 FR 10490, 3/20/84;
(11) Corrections to Test Methods Manual,
 49 FR 47390, 12/4/84;

[[Page 11803]]

 
(13) Definition of Solid Waste, 50 FR
 14216, 4/11/85 as amended on 8/20/85 at
 50 FR 33541 (except for variance
 authorities, 40 CFR 260.30 through 40
 CFR 260.33);
(23) Generators of 100 to 1000 kg
 Hazardous Waste (definitions), 51 FR
 10146, 3/24/86;
(24) Financial Responsibility;
 Settlement Agreement (definitions), 51
 FR 16422, 5/2/86;
(28) Standards for Hazardous Waste
 Storage and Treatment Tank Systems
 (definitions), 51 FR 25422, July 14,
 1986 as amended on August 15, 1986 at
 51 FR 29430;
(35) Revised Manual SW-846, Amended
 Incorporation by Reference
 (definitions), 52 FR 8072-8073, March
 16, 1987;
(49) Identification and Listing of
 Hazardous Waste, Treatability Studies
 Sample Exemption (definition), 53 FR
 27290, 7/19/88;
(67) Testing and Monitoring Activities,
 54 FR 40260, 9/29/89;
(71) Mining Waste Exclusion II
 (definition), 55 FR 2322, 1/23/90.
Consolidated Checklist 2 through July 1,  310 CMR 30.101-30.103; 30.104
 1990, covering base program               (exemptions), except for
 requirements in 40 CFR part 261 and       30.104(3)(d) (research study
 requirements in the following rule        samples); 30.105-30.162;
 checklists included in part 261:          30.353 (rules for very small
                                           quantity generators, being
                                           authorized in place of EPA
                                           conditional exemption in 40
                                           CFR 261.5)
(4) Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbon
 Listing (F024), 49 FR 5308, 2/10/84;
(7) Warfarin and Zinc Phosphide Listing,
 49 FR 19922, 5/10/84;
(8) Lime Stabilized Pickle Liquor
 Sludge, 49 FR 23284, 6/5/84;
(9) Household Waste, 49 FR 44978, 11/13/
 84;
(13) Definition of Solid Waste, 50 FR
 614, 1/4/85 as amended 4/11/85 at 50 FR
 14216 and 8/20/85 at 50 FR 33541;
(14) Dioxin Waste Listing and Management
 Standards, 50 FR 1978, 1/14/85;
(17C) HSWA Codification Rule--Household
 Waste, 50 FR 28702, 7/15/85;
(17J) HSWA Codification Rule--Cement
 Kilns, 50 FR 28702, 7/15/85;
(18) Listing of TDI, TDA, DNT, 50 FR
 42936, 10/23/85;
(20) Listing of Spent Solvents, 50 FR
 53315, 12/31/85 as amended on 1/21/86
 at 51 FR 2702;
(21) Listing of EDB Waste, 51 FR 5327, 2/
 13/86;
(22) Listing of Four Spent Solvents, 51
 FR 6537, 2/25/86;
(23) Generators of 100 to 1000 kg
 hazardous waste, 51 FR 10146, 3/24/86;
(26) Listing of Spent Pickle Liquor, 51
 FR 19320, 5/28/86 amended on 9/22/86 by
 51 FR 33612 and on 8/3/87 by 52 FR
 28697;
(28) Standards for Hazardous Waste
 Storage and Treatment Tank Systems, 51
 FR 25422, 7/14/86 as amended on 8/15/86
 at 51 FR 29430;
(29) Correction to Listing of Commercial
 Chemical Products and Appendix VIII, 51
 FR 28296, 8/6/86 (superseded by
 Checklist 46, see below);
(31) Exports of Hazardous Waste, 51 FR
 28664, 8/8/86;
(33) Listing of EBDC, 51 FR 37725, 10/24/
 86;
(37) Definition of Solid Waste,
 Technical Correction, 52 FR 21306, 6/5/
 87;
(41) Identification and Listing of
 Hazardous Waste, 52 FR 26012, 7/10/87;
(46) Technical Correction,
 Identification and Listing of Hazardous
 Waste, 53 FR 13382, 4/22/88;
(47) Identification and Listing of
 Hazardous Waste, Technical Correction
 (corrects CL 23);
(49) Identification and Listing of
 Hazardous Waste, Treatability Studies
 Sample Exemption, 53 FR 27290, 7/19/88;
(53) Identification and Listing of
 Hazardous Waste, and Designation,
 Reportable Quantities, and
 Notification, 53 FR 35412, 9/13/88;
(56) Identification and Listing of
 Hazardous Waste, Removal of Iron
 Dextran from the List of Hazardous
 Wastes, 53 FR 43878, 10/31/88;
(57) Identification and Listing of
 Hazardous Waste, Removal of Strontium
 Sulfide from the List of Hazardous
 Wastes, 53 FR 43881, 10/31/88;
(65) Mining Waste Exclusion I, 54 FR
 36592, 9/1/89;
(67) Testing and Monitoring Activities,
 54 FR 40260, 9/29/89;
(68) Reportable Quantity Adjustment
 Methyl Bromide Production Wastes, 54 FR
 41402, 10/6/89;
(69) Reportable Quantity Adjustment, 54
 FR 50968, 12/11/89;
(71) Mining Waste Exclusion II, 55 FR
 2322, 1/23/90;
(72) Modifications of F019 Listing, 55
 FR 5340, 2/14/90;
(73) Testing and Monitoring Activities,
 Technical Corrections, 55 FR 8948, 3/9/
 90;
(75) Listing of 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
 Production Wastes, 55 FR 18496, 5/2/90;
(76) Criteria for Listing Toxic Wastes,
 technical amendment, 55 FR 18726, 5/4/
 90.
Consolidated Checklist 3 through July 1,  310 CMR 30.301-30.352 (rules
 1990, covering base program               for large and small quantity
 requirements in 40 CFR part 262 and       generators); revisions to
 requirements in the following rule        30.685(1) (referenced by
 checklists included in part 262:          generator regulations);
                                           30.361 (international
                                           shipments); 30.061-30.064
                                           (generator notifications/i.d.
                                           numbers).
(1) Biennial Report, 48 FR 3977, 1/28/
 83;

[[Page 11804]]

 
(5) National Uniform Manifest, 49 FR
 10490, 3/20/84;
(17D) HSWA Codification Rule, Waste
 Minimization, 50 FR 28702, 7/15/85;
(23) Generators of 100 to 1000 kg
 Hazardous Waste, 51 FR 10146, 3/24/86;
(28) Standards for Hazardous Waste
 Storage and Treatment Tank Systems, 51
 FR 25422, 7/14/86 as amended on 8/15/86
 at 51 FR 29430;
(31) Exports of Hazardous Waste, 51 FR
 28664, 8/8/86;
(32) Standards for Generators, Waste
 Minimization Certifications, 51 FR
 35190, 10/1/86;
(42) Exception Reporting for Small
 Quantity Generators of Hazardous Waste,
 52 FR 35894, 9/23/87; laboratories
(48) Farmer Exemptions, Technical
 Corrections, 53 FR 27164, 7/19/88;
(58) Standards for Generators of
 Hazardous Waste, Manifest Renewal, 53
 FR 45089, 11/8/88;
(71) Mining Waste Exclusion II, 55 FR
 2322, 1/23/90.
                                          Note: The Massachusetts
                                           ``Class A'' recycling
                                           regulations regarding
                                           generators doing on-site
                                           recycling also are being
                                           authorized, as described in
                                           Part II of this document.
                                           Special rules for certain
                                           university covered by the New
                                           England Universities'
                                           Laboratories XL project also
                                           are being authorized, as
                                           described in Part III of this
                                           document.
RCRA Cluster X:
(184) Accumulation Time for Waste Water   310 CMR 30.340(5)
 Treatment Sludges, 65 FR 12378, 3/8/00.
Revisions to Previously Authorized
 Rules:
(12) Satellite Accumulation Rule, 49 FR   310 CMR 30.340(6), 30.351(5),
 49568, 12/20/84;.                         30.351(2)(b)(6.) and
                                           30.353(2)(b)(6.).
(119) Toxicity Characteristics Revision,  310 CMR 30.155 and 30.012
 TCLP Correction, 57 FR 55114, 11/24/92    (updated incorporation by
 as amended on 2/2/93 at 58 FR 6854.       reference).
(142) Universal Waste Rule, 60 FR 25492,  310 CMR 30.1034(5)(c)(1.)(c.)
 5/11/95.                                  (revised cross-reference).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following review of these Massachusetts regulations, the EPA has 
determined that they are equivalent to, no less stringent than and 
consistent with the Federal program. Therefore, under the standard 
authorization process, the EPA is granting Massachusetts final 
authorization to operate its updated hazardous waste program as 
reflected in the table above. The reasons for these determinations are 
set forth in the Administrative Docket, which is available for public 
review. Many of the State regulations track Federal requirements 
virtually identically. Others differ from the Federal regulations in 
particular details, but have been determined by the EPA to be 
equivalent to the Federal regulations in providing the same (or 
greater) overall level of environmental protection with respect to each 
Federal requirement. The resolution of various issues relating to the 
State regulations is recorded in an EPA Memorandum dated February 14, 
2003 entitled ``Comments on Proposed Massachusetts RCRA Regulations'' 
and an EPA Memorandum dated March 31, 2003 entitled ``Resolution of 
Issues Regarding Proposed Massachusetts RCRA Regulations.''
    The final State regulations being authorized by the EPA today are 
virtually identical to the proposed State regulations that were 
proposed to be approved by the EPA on October 21, 2003. The only 
substantive difference between the proposed state regulations and final 
regulations is that, in response to public comments made at the State 
level, the MADEP has not adopted the proposed requirement that 
inspection logs be kept of inspections made in Satellite accumulation 
areas. The requirement that weekly inspections occur in such areas has 
been maintained. The EPA is today authorizing the State's Satellite 
accumulation area regulations, notwithstanding this change, since the 
State's regulations remain at least as stringent as the federal 
Satellite accumulation area regulations. The EPA is granting this final 
authorization without conducting an additional public comment process, 
since the change is a minor one and is a logical outgrowth from the 
State regulations initially proposed to be authorized by the EPA.
    Today's authorization addresses some but not all of the RCRA 
provisions which need to be adopted by the State. Future updates of the 
State's regulations will need to address requirements covered by 
Checklists C1 through C3 adopted after July 1, 1990 and requirements 
covered by Checklists C4 through C10 adopted since July 1, 1984. The 
EPA has not reviewed and is not currently authorizing changes the State 
may have made to Base Program regulations relating to Checklists C4-
C10. (Note, Checklists C4 through C10 address EPA provisions found in 
40 CFR parts 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 270, 124 and 279). Also not 
covered in the current authorization are some rules issued by the EPA 
before July 1, 1990 which apply in part to generators, namely the 1986 
Radioactive Mixed Waste rule/interpretation, the various rules relating 
to Land Disposal Restrictions (``LDRs''), and the 1990 Organics Air 
Emissions rule (``AA'' and ``BB'' rule). Also not covered in the 
current authorization are sector-specific rules that the MADEP has 
adopted for printers, photo processors and dry cleaners under its 
Environmental Results Program (``ERP''). Although many sources in these 
sectors are subject to RCRA requirements, the MADEP has advised the EPA 
that the ERP regulations have not made any changes to the hazardous 
waste management requirements applicable to these sectors, and has not 
submitted the ERP regulations for authorization at this time. Also not 
covered in the current authorization is the State regulation at 310 CMR 
30.104(3)(d) relating to research facilities. That regulation relates 
to an exemption from full Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facility 
(``TSDF'') requirements found at 310 CMR 30.864. The EPA will review 
that research facility provision (and the related exemption) when the 
MADEP submits updated regulations for TSDFs (Consolidated Checklists 
C5, C6 and C9). Also not covered in the current authorization is the 
proposed State definition of ``municipal or industrial

[[Page 11805]]

wastewater treatment facility permitted under M.G.L. c. 21, sec. 43'' 
in 310 CMR 30.010. That definition relates to an exemption from full 
TSDF requirements found at 310 CMR 30.801(4). The EPA will review this 
definition (and the related exemption) when the MADEP submits updated 
regulations for TSDFs.

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

    The most significant differences between the State rules and the 
Federal rules are summarized below. It should be noted that this 
summary does not describe every difference, or every detail regarding 
the differences that are described. Members of the regulated community 
are advised to read the complete regulations to ensure that they 
understand all of the requirements with which they will need to comply.
1. More Stringent Provisions
    There are aspects of the Massachusetts program which are more 
stringent than the Federal program. All of these more stringent 
requirements are part of the federally enforceable RCRA program, and 
must be complied with in addition to the State requirements which track 
the minimum Federal requirements. These more stringent requirements 
include the following:
     Massachusetts does not follow the EPA 
interpretation allowing Large Quantity Generators and Small Quantity 
Generators to conduct treatment without permits in accumulation tanks 
and containers.
     Massachusetts imposes various requirements 
regarding storage of hazardous wastes by generators which are more 
stringent than Federal requirements. For example, Massachusetts 
requires that labels on tanks and containers include identification of 
the hazardous wastes and the type of hazards associated with the 
wastes, as well as tracking the Federal requirement that the labels 
include the words ``hazardous waste.''
     In addition, Massachusetts specifies record-
keeping requirements to document compliance with requirements in some 
circumstances where the record-keeping is not expressly required under 
the Federal regulations, e.g., the keeping of an inspection log for 
container inspections in central storage areas.
     Massachusetts imposes spill containment 
requirements for container areas (not just for tanks as in the Federal 
regulations), including a requirement that indoor containers be located 
on an impervious base and a requirement that outdoor containers have 
full secondary containment.
     Massachusetts requires security measures and 
posting of signs at hazardous waste storage areas, in addition to the 
labeling of individual tanks and containers as required by the Federal 
regulations.
     Massachusetts does not allow any storage of 
hazardous wastes in open tanks, whereas the Federal regulations allow 
such storage except when otherwise required by the 40 CFR parts 264 and 
265, subpart CC hazardous air emission rules.
     The Massachusetts satellite storage regulations 
require containers to be moved from satellite areas to central storage 
areas within three days of a container being filled, whereas this 
three-day period begins to run under the Federal regulations only when 
more than 55 gallons has been accumulated in the satellite area.
     Massachusetts specifies requirements for Very 
Small Quantity Generators (``VSQGs'') (Federal Conditionally Exempt 
Small Quantity Generators) which go beyond the Federal requirements for 
conditional exemption. For example, Massachusetts specifies safe 
storage practices for VSQGs whereas the Federal regulations regarding 
tank and container storage apply only to Large Quantity Generators 
(``LQGs'') and Small Quantity Generators (``SQGs'').
     In addition, Massachusetts prohibits VSQGs from 
generating or accumulating any acutely hazardous wastes, whereas the 
Federal regulations allow such generators to accumulate up to one 
kilogram of such wastes.
     Finally, VSQG hazardous wastes may be sent to 
municipal solid waste landfills under the Federal program but not under 
the Massachusetts program.
2. Broader in Scope Provisions
    There also are aspects of the Massachusetts program which are 
broader in scope than the Federal program. The State requirements which 
are broader in scope are not considered to be part of the Federally 
enforceable RCRA program. However, they are fully enforceable under 
State law and must be complied with by sources within Massachusetts. 
These broader in scope requirements include the following:
     As further discussed in part II, below, 
Massachusetts designates and regulates as hazardous many recyclable 
materials not regulated as hazardous wastes under the Federal RCRA 
program, in addition to regulating those hazardous recyclable materials 
that are regulated as hazardous wastes in the Federal program.
     Massachusetts regulates both Centers and Events 
which collect household hazardous wastes and VSQG hazardous wastes. In 
contrast, household hazardous wastes are not regulated as hazardous 
wastes under the Federal program even when collected at centers and 
events. In addition, under the Federal regulations, VSQG hazardous 
wastes may be sent to facilities authorized by the State to manage such 
wastes, but there are no Federal regulations specifying the standards 
to be followed at facilities which are centers and events.
3. Different but Equivalent Provisions
    As noted in part I.C. above, there also are various Massachusetts 
regulations which differ from but have been determined to be equivalent 
to the Federal regulations. These State regulations which are different 
from but equivalent to the Federal regulations are part of the 
Federally enforceable RCRA program. These different but equivalent 
requirements include the following:
     The Massachusetts regulations regarding 
satellite storage allow more than one container in a satellite area (so 
long as there is only one container per waste stream) whereas the 
Federal regulations contemplate that there will be only one 55 gallon 
container in each satellite area. Unlike the Federal regulations, 
however, the State regulations impose requirements to ensure that 
multiple containers will be stored safely, including aisle spacing 
requirements, requirements for separation of containers with 
incompatible wastes and inspection requirements.
     The Massachusetts regulations specify that while 
hazardous wastes placed into satellite storage must be counted when 
determining a generator's rate of generation, they need not be counted 
when determining the amount of hazardous waste stored on site (for 
purposes of determining whether a generator is a LQG, SQG or VSQG). In 
contrast, under the Federal regulations, wastes in satellite storage 
are counted both when determining a generator's rate of generation and 
when determining the amount of hazardous waste stored on site.
     The Massachusetts regulations contain the same 
exemption from hazardous waste requirements for certain chromium wastes 
as is found in the Federal regulations at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(6). However, 
under the EPA regulation, a generator seeking to claim the exemption 
for other than specifically listed waste streams must petition the EPA 
and obtain a determination that its particular wastes are exempt. In 
contrast, Massachusetts is allowing a generator to make this

[[Page 11806]]

determination for itself provided that the generator documents 
compliance with the criteria listed in the State (and Federal) 
regulations. Of course, a generator is responsible for making the 
correct determination, and the EPA encourages generators who have any 
questions to seek guidance from the MADEP or EPA. Also, an exemption 
determination made by a generator under the Massachusetts regulations 
will apply only within Massachusetts. Petitions will need to be filed 
with any other authorized State to which shipments are made, or with 
the EPA if shipments are made to a non-authorized State.
     The Massachusetts regulations contain 
conditional exemptions for bulk scrap metal items as well as smaller 
particle scrap metal items being recycled, for whole used circuit 
boards as well as shredded circuit boards being recycled and for 
certain mixtures of water and unused gasoline being recycled. The 
Federal regulations similarly exempt these materials, but sometimes 
under different categories (e.g., whole used circuit boards under the 
scrap metal category, certain mixtures of water and unused gasoline 
under the commercial chemical products category).
     Massachusetts allows VSQGs to conduct certain 
kinds of treatment on site without a permit. The exemption is limited 
to non-thermal treatment (typically neutralization) of wastes generated 
on site and is subject to a requirement that the treatment be conducted 
safely. The Massachusetts program operates somewhat similarly to the 
EPA interpretation allowing certain kinds of treatment in accumulation 
tanks and containers without permits, by LQGs and SQGs. However, 
Massachusetts allows treatment without permits only by VSQGs, whereas 
the EPA interpretation instead allows it by LQGs and SQGs. Also, the 
EPA interpretation allows treatment only within accumulation tanks and 
containers, whereas the Massachusetts regulation allows treatment in 
non-accumulation containers (e.g., laboratory containers) at the site 
where the waste was generated, provided of course that this can be done 
safely.
     The Massachusetts regulations require that 
secondary containment systems for outdoor above-ground tanks must have 
a capacity at least equal to 110% of the volume of the largest tank. 
This requirement is designed to take the place of the Federal 
requirement (in 40 CFR 265.193(e)) that such containment systems must 
have a capacity at least equal to 100% of the volume of the largest 
tank plus sufficient capacity to contain precipitation from a 25 year, 
24 hour storm. The Massachusetts regulations generally track the 
Federal requirements regarding secondary containment requirements for 
underground tanks. The Massachusetts regulations have been amended to 
require secondary containment for indoor above-ground tanks with a 
capacity at least equal to 100% of the volume of the largest tank (the 
Federal standard).
     The Massachusetts regulations specify standards 
for when tanks will be considered ``empty.'' The EPA regulations 
specify such standards only for containers, while specifying that tanks 
must be decontaminated before being disposed or reused. It should be 
noted that the State's empty tank standard for non-acute wastes is more 
stringent than the State (and Federal) empty container standard, i.e., 
it does not allow waste residues to be left in tanks. The State 
standards will operate similarly to the tank decontamination 
requirement in the Federal regulations, but the State regulations 
clarify that generators may be able to determine that tanks are 
``empty'' based on knowledge of the waste (e.g., knowledge that there 
has been appropriate thorough cleaning of the tanks), without needing 
to do TCLP testing in every case.

E. What Will Be the Effect of the Authorization Decision?

    The effect of the authorization decision will be that entities in 
Massachusetts subject to RCRA will need to comply with the authorized 
State requirements instead of the Federal requirements, with respect to 
the matters covered by the authorized State requirements, in order to 
comply with RCRA. However, until the authorized Massachusetts program 
is brought fully up to date, there will continue to be a dual state/
Federal RCRA program in Massachusetts. RCRA was amended by the 
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (``HSWA'') in 1984. Section 
3006(g) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6906(g), provides that when the EPA 
promulgates new regulatory requirements pursuant to HSWA, the EPA shall 
directly carry out these requirements in states authorized to 
administer the underlying hazardous waste program, until the states are 
authorized to administer these new requirements. The EPA has 
established various new regulatory requirements pursuant to HSWA which 
have not yet been authorized to be administered by Massachusetts. There 
also are various self-implementing requirements directly established by 
the HSWA statutory amendments themselves. Regulated entities must 
comply with these HSWA requirements as set out in the Federal 
regulations and statute in addition to authorized State program 
requirements. The HSWA requirements that will continue to be 
administered by the EPA in Massachusetts include all of the Land 
Disposal Restriction (``LDR'') requirements set out in 40 CFR part 268 
(including requirements adopted prior to July 1, 1990), the Corrective 
Action requirements referenced in 40 CFR 264.101, and the hazardous air 
emission standards set out in 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts AA, BB 
and CC. A complete list of HSWA requirements is set out in 40 CFR 
271.1, Tables 1 and 2.
    With respect to TSDF permitting, Massachusetts will continue to 
issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and 
will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to 
administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits it 
has issued. The EPA also will continue to issue permits or portions of 
permits covering HSWA requirements for which Massachusetts is not 
authorized. In addition, the EPA will continue to implement the 
provisions of 40 CFR 264.1(f)(2) within Massachusetts. That provision 
specifies that TSDFs must comply with any standards promulgated by the 
EPA (HSWA or non-HSWA) after a State is authorized, until the State 
obtains authorization to issue permits covering such newly promulgated 
standards. The major effect of this provision in Massachusetts is that 
the EPA will remain responsible for issuing permits for Miscellaneous 
Units, since the EPA promulgated the Miscellaneous Unit standards in 40 
CFR part 264, subpart X after the initial authorization of the 
Massachusetts base program, and since Massachusetts has not yet applied 
for and is not now being authorized to carry out these requirements.
    Massachusetts is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste 
program in Indian country within the State (land of the Wampanoag 
tribe). Today's action will have no effect on Indian country. The EPA 
will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program in these 
lands.
    The EPA is authorizing but not codifying the enumerated revisions 
to the Massachusetts program. Codification is the process of placing 
the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's 
authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal 
Regulations. The EPA does this by referencing the authorized State 
rules in 40 CFR part 272. The EPA reserves the amendment of 40 CFR part 
272, subpart W for the codification of the

[[Page 11807]]

Massachusetts' program until a later date.

F. Response to Public Comments

    The EPA received one comment generally supporting the authorization 
of the updated State regulations. A second commenter took no position 
on the authorization, but suggested that the EPA make a minor revision 
to the description of the federal Satellite accumulation regulations 
contained in the proposed rulemaking notice. Specifically, in the 
second bulleted item in part I.D.3. of the proposed rulemaking notice, 
Region I indicated that under the federal regulations, when a container 
is moved from a Satellite accumulation area to a central storage area, 
the time allowed for central storage begins to run when the container 
is required to be moved, which can be up to three days before the 
container is actually moved. The commenter pointed out that EPA's 
Office of Solid Waste has issued a more liberal interpretation of the 
federal regulations, stating that the time allowed for central storage 
begins to run only when the container is moved (provided of course that 
the container is moved within the three-day period). See RCRA/Superfund 
Hotline Monthly Summary, October 1990 (Faxback 13410). To avoid 
confusion, the Region has dropped its prior description of this federal 
Satellite accumulation requirement from today's final rulemaking 
notice. The Region plans to follow the OSW interpretation when applying 
the federal regulations.
    This change has no effect on the interpretation of the 
Massachusetts regulations being authorized. In the proposed rulemaking 
notice, the Region correctly described the State regulations as 
specifying that the time allowed for central storage begins to run when 
a container is moved (within the three-day period).

II. State-Specific Modification to Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations, 
Pursuant to ECOS Program Proposal, To Enable EPA To Authorize Certain 
Portions of the Massachusetts Revisions; Resulting Authorization of 
Massachusetts Recyclable Materials Regulations

A. What Massachusetts Regulations Are Being Authorized?

    In 1986, the MADEP adopted regulations to comprehensively regulate 
hazardous recyclable materials, under provisions separate from those 
governing hazardous wastes planned to be disposed. These regulations 
are found in 310 CMR 30.200. In the Federal RCRA program, some 
hazardous recyclable materials are not considered to be hazardous 
wastes and thus are exempt from hazardous waste regulation (e.g., 
sludges and byproducts exhibiting a characteristic of hazardous waste 
and being reclaimed) whereas other hazardous recyclable materials are 
considered to be hazardous wastes and are subject to regulation 
including all of the usually applicable hazardous waste generator 
regulations (e.g., spent materials, listed sludges and listed 
byproducts being reclaimed). In contrast, the State regulations cover 
virtually all hazardous recyclable materials under some level of 
regulation. However, based on the perceived level of risk, different 
recyclable materials are subject to different levels of regulation, 
from the least regulated Class A to the most regulated Class C.
    Initially, the State's Class A regulations applied only to 
recyclable materials that are exempt from Federal regulation. Thus the 
State was not required to seek Federal authorization for these 
regulations. In 1995, however, the MADEP expanded the Class A category 
to include many recyclable materials that are recycled at the site of 
generation. Under the State regulations, these Class A recyclable 
materials must be recycled in a recycling system that is completely 
enclosed, but may be stored in tanks or containers prior to being 
recycled, without the entire storage to recycling process being 
completely enclosed. Thus the Class A regulations now apply to certain 
federally regulated hazardous wastes that are recycled on site by 
generators, namely those hazardous recyclable materials that are spent 
materials, listed sludges and listed byproducts, that are accumulated 
or stored on site before being recycled, and that are recycled through 
a process that does not meet all of the conditions for Federal 
exemption as a completely enclosed recycling process set out in 40 CFR 
261.4(a)(8). In particular, the Class A regulations apply to Federally 
regulated recyclable materials currently being stored by about 136 
generators with stand alone solvent stills/distillation units and to 
Federally regulated recyclable materials currently being stored by 
about 40 generators with stand alone silver recovery units.
    The EPA is today authorizing the State's Class A regulations 
insofar as they apply to the storage of recyclable materials by 
generators with stand alone solvent stills/distillation units, 
generators with stand alone silver recovery units, and any other 
generators who may store Federally regulated recyclable materials 
subject to the Class A regulations in the future (i.e., generators 
referenced by 310 CMR 30.212(10)). These Class A regulations are now 
part of the federally approved and enforceable State base program 
generator requirements.
    It should be noted that the State has just revised its Class A 
regulations (as part of its recent update), and it is the revised Class 
A regulations which the EPA is authorizing. With respect to the Class A 
program, there are no substantive differences between the final State 
regulations being authorized by the EPA today and the proposed State 
regulations that were proposed to be approved by the EPA on October 21, 
2003.
    Today's authorization does not cover the Class A regulations 
insofar as they apply to the Federally exempt recyclable materials 
referenced by 310 CMR 30.212(1) through (7), as the regulation of these 
recyclable materials is beyond the scope of the Federal RCRA program. 
The authorization also does not cover the Class A regulations insofar 
as they apply to waste oil and specification used fuel oil as 
referenced by 310 CMR 30.212 (8)--(9), since the MADEP has not yet 
applied to be authorized for the Federal RCRA Used Oil program 
(established in 40 CFR part 279). Finally, the authorization does not 
cover the State's Class B and Class C regulations, since the MADEP has 
not yet applied to be authorized for these regulations (which generally 
relate to off-site non-generator recycling).

B. Why is the EPA Making a Federal Regulation Change?

    The EPA has reviewed the Massachusetts Class A regulations and 
determined that they do not meet particular requirements for State 
authorization set out in the current EPA regulations. However, the EPA 
also has determined that the Massachusetts Class A regulations meet the 
RCRA statutory test of protecting human health and the environment and 
are at least as environmentally protective overall as the Federal 
program. Thus the EPA is making a State-specific Federal regulation 
change to allow authorization of the Massachusetts Class A regulations.
1. Differences in the State Class A Regulations Which Preclude a 
Standard Authorization
    In comparison with the EPA regulations applicable to storage of 
hazardous wastes by generators, the Class A regulations regarding 
storage of hazardous recyclable materials by generators differ with 
respect to various details. For example, under the Federal regulations, 
storage of hazardous wastes

[[Page 11808]]

without TSDF permits by LQGs and SQGs generally is limited to 90 and 
180 days, respectively. In contrast, the Class A regulations allow 
recyclable materials to be stored pending recycling so long as there is 
no ``speculative accumulation.'' This typically allows storage times 
without TSDF permits of a year or longer. The EPA regulations on State 
authorization specify that, ``[s]tate law must require [TSDF] permits 
for owners and operators of all hazardous waste management facilities 
required to obtain permits under 40 CFR part 270 . . .'' 40 CFR 
271.13(a). By allowing generator storage times without TSDF permits 
longer than the Federal regulations, the Class A regulations do not 
comply with this current EPA requirement for State authorization.
    In addition, the Class A regulations impose requirements regarding 
storage of recyclable materials by generators which are quite different 
from the Federal regulations in 40 CFR part 262 regarding generator 
storage. In place of the Federal categories of LQG, SQG and CESQG 
(Massachusetts VSQG), the Class A regulations establish a dual status 
system. Generators are classified as LQGs or SQGs or VSQGs with respect 
to wastes to be shipped off-site based on the amount of such wastes to 
be shipped off-site. Generators are separately classified and regulated 
with respect to Class A recyclable materials based on the amounts of 
such materials (and are placed in either a merged LQG/SQG category or a 
VSQG category for that purpose). The resulting differences between the 
State and Federal regulations are fully described in a EPA memorandum 
dated July 8, 2002 entitled ``Massachusetts RCRA Program Update: Issues 
Regarding Regulation of Recyclable Materials Reclaimed by Generators on 
Site.'' The differences include that the State does not count Class A 
recyclable materials in determining generator status (for wastes to be 
shipped off-site), resulting in some sources which would be LQGs under 
the Federal program instead being regulated in a lesser-regulated 
generator category. In addition, for sources which remain LQGs 
(notwithstanding the difference regarding counting), the usual LQG 
requirements regarding contingency planning and training do not apply 
to the parts of the generator's site handling the Class A hazardous 
recyclable materials. Rather, with respect to these recyclable 
materials, such generators are instead subject to the less formal and 
detailed Class A requirements regarding emergency planning and 
training.
    The EPA is committed to reexamining the extent of flexibility that 
should be employed when reviewing State RCRA programs. In connection 
with another part of Massachusetts' ECOS program proposal, the EPA has 
created a Work Group of EPA and State personnel to examine 
authorization issues. Without waiting for the results of this effort, 
the EPA nevertheless has employed some flexibility consistent with its 
current regulations in reviewing the Massachusetts RCRA program update, 
as indicated by its approval of some Massachusetts provisions which 
differ from Federal provisions, discussed in part I.D. above. However, 
the differences between the Massachusetts Class A regulations and the 
EPA generator storage regulations are greater than those discussed in 
part I.D., and a standard authorization of the Class A regulations is 
precluded under the current EPA State authorization regulations by, for 
example, the difference regarding when TSDF permits are required. Thus 
the EPA is not approving the Massachusetts Class A regulations as a 
standard authorization.
2. Justification for Making a Change to the Federal Regulations to 
Allow the Authorization
    The EPA was persuaded to make a State-specific regulation change to 
its Federal regulations to enable the authorization of the Class A 
regulations, based on the following reasons. The Massachusetts program 
comprehensively regulates hazardous wastes that are recycled on site by 
generators, and has operated successfully for many years. The State 
regulations contain incentives that encourage recycling (e.g., lower 
fees for generators which recycle). In its ECOS project application, 
the MADEP reported that as of 1999, over 490,000 tons of wastes were 
recycled under its program, as opposed to 90,000 tons of hazardous 
wastes that were disposed. Basic requirements are in place in the 
State's recycling program, including the requirement to do waste 
determinations, the requirement to obtain hazardous waste i.d. numbers 
(except for VSQGs) and safe handling requirements. While less stringent 
with respect to certain details, the Massachusetts program is at least 
as stringent as the Federal program overall. In particular, the 
Massachusetts program regulates a broader universe of hazardous 
recyclable materials than are regulated in the Federal program. Even if 
the focus is limited to Federally regulated wastes, the Massachusetts 
program is as stringent as the Federal program overall. It regulates 
the recycling process itself as well as prior hazardous waste storage, 
unlike the Federal program which regulates only the storage. Finally, 
some of the State's more stringent storage requirements (described in 
part I.D. above), have been applied to the storage of Class A 
materials, including additional labeling requirements and the 
prohibition of the use of open tanks.
    Thus the Massachusetts Class A regulations meet the RCRA statutory 
test of protecting human health and the environment, and constitute an 
acceptable alternative approach (to regulating hazardous recyclable 
materials) to the approach currently set forth in the Federal 
regulations. In addition, the EPA recently announced that it is 
planning to propose a change to its regulations to revise the Federal 
RCRA regulatory requirements with respect to recyclable materials that 
remain in use in a continuous industrial process. 49 FR 11251 (March 
13, 2002). This is a part of the EPA's response to the court's decision 
in Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1047 (D.C.Cir. 
2000) (``ABR''), which set aside a portion of an EPA regulation 
regarding mineral processing industry recyclable materials. If the EPA 
ultimately adopts a regulation exempting recyclable materials used in a 
continuous industrial process from Federal RCRA regulation, this 
exemption is likely to cover at least most Class A recyclable 
materials.
    The EPA does not believe that in light of the ABR decision, it 
should determine now that all Class A materials are not subject to 
Federal regulation, and thus conclude that the Class A regulations 
create no authorization issues. Such a result is not compelled by the 
court's decision and would prejudge the EPA's anticipated general 
rulemaking process. However, the fact that the EPA is planning to move 
in the direction of reducing regulation regarding recyclable materials 
is an additional reason counseling in favor of authorizing the State's 
program regarding Class A recyclable materials under the authority of a 
special EPA regulation. As mentioned above, the State's Class A program 
has operated successfully for many years. Requiring the State to now 
change that program to track EPA requirements does not make sense in 
the particular circumstances, including the EPA's announced intention 
to soon change the requirements.
    The EPA is making the State-specific change to its Federal 
regulations pursuant to a proposal for flexibility submitted by the 
MADEP under the ECOS program. Under the Joint EPA/State Agreement to 
Pursue Regulatory Innovation, the EPA agreed to entertain

[[Page 11809]]

State proposals for flexibility in an agreement entered into between 
the EPA and the Environmental Council of States. See 63 FR 24784 (May 
5, 1998). As specified in that agreement, the EPA may accept State 
proposals to follow alternative regulatory requirements when (as here) 
the alternative requirements provide at least an equivalent overall 
level of environmental protection as the standard EPA mandated 
requirements.

C. What Is the Regulation Change?

    The change to the Federal regulations which is enabling the EPA to 
grant the requested flexibility is set out at the end of this document. 
The EPA is amending 40 CFR 262.10 to add a paragraph (k), which 
specifies that generators within Massachusetts may comply with the 
Class A regulations, when authorized, with respect to the recyclable 
materials and matters covered by the authorization, instead of 
complying with certain standard EPA regulations. This new regulation is 
taking effect immediately upon today's publication in the Federal 
Register. Having the regulation take effect immediately is justified 
under RCRA section 3010(b), 42 U.S.C. 6930(b) and under the 
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), since this new 
regulation allows the EPA to authorize a long-standing State program 
and the regulated community does not need any further time to come into 
compliance with that State program. The EPA Administrator has delegated 
one-time authority to the Regional Administrator, EPA New England, to 
make this regulation change.

D. What Will be the Effect of the Federal Regulation Change?

    The change to the Federal regulations is enabling the EPA to today 
authorize the Massachusetts regulations, since the Federal regulations 
now specify that the State regulations contain acceptable alternative 
standards for Massachusetts. The State regulations are equivalent to, 
consistent with and no less stringent than these acceptable alternative 
standards. Allowing the alternative standards is justified for the 
reasons discussed in part II.B, above. In particular, the EPA has 
determined that the alternative program protects human health and the 
environment and is at least as stringent overall as the standard EPA 
RCRA program. The EPA believes that it has the authority to approve 
this alternative program under the RCRA statute.
    However, the change to the Federal regulations does not itself 
result in any change to the legal requirements applicable to generators 
in Massachusetts. Rather, generators became subject to the revised 
Class A requirements under State law following their recent adoption in 
final form by the MADEP. These requirements are in turn becoming part 
of the Federally enforceable RCRA program upon being authorized by the 
EPA today. For the sake of efficiency, the EPA is both making the 
Federal regulation change and authorizing the State regulations in this 
same rulemaking today. Thus in this particular case, the State 
requirements are becoming authorized and federally enforceable at the 
same time as the Federal regulation change.
    Under section 3006 of RCRA, the EPA may authorize a qualified State 
to administer and enforce a hazardous waste program within the State. 
(See 40 CFR part 271 for the requirements for authorization). States 
with final authorization administer their own hazardous waste programs 
in lieu of the Federal program. Following authorization, the EPA 
continues to have independent enforcement authority under RCRA sections 
3007, 3008, 3013 and 7003.
    After authorization, Federal rules written under RCRA provisions 
which predate the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) 
no longer apply in the authorized state. Rather, the authorized State 
regulations apply in lieu of such Federal requirements. In addition, 
new Federal requirements imposed by such rules do not take effect in an 
authorized state until the state adopts the requirements.
    In contrast, under section 3006(g) of RCRA, new requirements and 
prohibitions imposed by HSWA take effect in authorized states at the 
same time that they take effect in non-authorized states. The EPA is 
directed to carry out HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized 
states until the state is granted authorization to do so.
    Today's federal regulation change is promulgated pursuant to non-
HSWA authority. Thus, as explained above, the alternative standards 
contemplated by the rule took effect in Massachusetts following 
adoption by Massachusetts and are becoming Federally enforceable upon 
being authorized by the EPA today. They now apply in lieu of the EPA 
program with respect to the recyclable materials and matters covered by 
the authorization. For example, generators storing solvents for 
recycling in stand alone stills/distillation may store such solvents 
without permits for more than the 90 or 180 days set out in the Federal 
regulations, so long as they do not engage in ``speculative 
accumulation.''
    Of course, generators still will need to comply with any other 
applicable RCRA requirements in addition to the Class A requirements. 
For example, generators storing some wastes for recycling and other 
wastes for disposal will need to comply with the authorized State 
requirements regarding wastes being stored for disposal with respect to 
those other wastes. In addition, generators will need to comply with 
any applicable Federal requirements which are being directly 
implemented by the EPA within Massachusetts pursuant to HSWA, i.e., all 
HSWA requirements for which the State has not yet been authorized.
    In particular, the State has not yet been authorized for and the 
EPA is continuing to administer within Massachusetts the air emission 
standards for tanks and containers set out in 40 CFR part 265, subpart 
CC (``CC regulations''). These regulations are applicable to many large 
quantity generators storing solvents, among others. Following today's 
authorization of the Class A regulations, the EPA plans to administer 
and enforce these CC regulations within Massachusetts as follows. 
First, only generators which are classified as large quantity 
generators under the State regulations will be considered subject to 
the CC regulations. That is, the EPA will utilize the Massachusetts 
counting rules when administering the CC rule within Massachusetts. 
This will avoid generators needing to do two separate State and Federal 
status calculations. Second, however, any generators which are 
classified as large quantity generators under the State regulations 
with respect to any part of their site will be subject to the CC 
regulations throughout their sites. Large quantity generators storing 
solvents will need to comply with all applicable requirements imposed 
by the CC regulations, whether the solvents are being stored for 
disposal or recycling. That is, the EPA will not utilize the 
Massachusetts dual status concept when administering the CC rule within 
Massachusetts. The EPA expects that any generator which is a LQG will 
take the steps required under the CC rule to prevent hazardous air 
emissions, just as such generators are subject to all applicable Clean 
Air Act requirements whether they dispose of their wastes or recycle.

E. For How Long Will the Authorization Continue?

    Unlike the authorization of the Labs XL project regulations 
discussed in part III below, today's authorization of the Massachusetts 
ECOS project regulations will continue indefinitely. The EPA believes 
this is justified based on the

[[Page 11810]]

long successful operation of the Massachusetts Class A program, i.e., 
no further assessment is necessary prior to the permanent authorization 
of this RCRA program element. Of course, like any other authorized 
program element, the Massachusetts Class A program will be subject to 
EPA oversight and possible future revision. But absent future EPA 
action to modify or rescind the action, the authorization will 
continue.
    If the EPA issues future final regulations changing the status of 
recyclable materials used in a continuous industrial process under 
Federal RCRA regulation, portions of the Massachusetts Class A program 
now being authorized could then become beyond the scope of Federal 
regulation. If and when any revised national regulations take effect, 
the EPA will then address, in connection with a later update of the 
Massachusetts RCRA program, the effect of the national regulations on 
the Massachusetts program.

F. Response to Public Comments

    The EPA received one comment supporting the authorization of the 
State's Class A program. No comments were filed opposing authorization 
of the program.

III. Extension of Site-Specific Regulations for New England 
Universities' Laboratories XL Project To Enable EPA To Authorize 
Certain Portions of the Massachusetts Revisions; Authorization of 
Massachusetts XL Project Regulations

A. What Is the New England Universities' Laboratories XL Project?

    Project XL--``eXcellence and Leadership'' was announced in May 1995 
as a part of the National Performance Review and the EPA's effort to 
reinvent environmental protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23, 1995). 
Project XL provides a limited number of private and public regulated 
entities an opportunity to develop pilot projects to provide regulatory 
flexibility that will result in environmental protection that is 
superior to what would be achieved through compliance with current 
standard regulations and reasonably anticipated future regulations.
    One of the projects that has been approved under Project XL is the 
New England Universities' Laboratories project. A Project XL proposal 
that the EPA exercise flexibility under RCRA was developed for the 
University of Massachusetts--Boston, Boston, MA, Boston College, 
Chestnut Hill, MA, and the University of Vermont, Burlington, VT (the 
``participating universities''). A Final Project Agreement approving 
the proposal was signed by the EPA, the participating universities, the 
MADEP and the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, on 
September 28, 1999. Pursuant to that agreement, the participating 
universities have been allowed to comply with Environmental Management 
Plans (EMPs) covering their laboratories in place of certain standard 
requirements for hazardous waste generators, during a trial period. In 
order to allow this experiment, the EPA adopted special regulations 
during 1999 which are set forth in 40 CFR 262.10(j) and 40 CFR 262.100-
108. See 64 FR 52380 (September 28, 1999) (final rulemaking) and 64 FR 
40696 (July 27, 1999) (proposed rulemaking). The reasons for approving 
the special EPA regulations are fully set forth in those rulemaking 
notices and will not be repeated here. Like the special regulation 
discussed in part II above in connection with the proposed ECOS 
project, the special EPA regulations were designed to enable the EPA to 
authorize State regulations that are different from the standard EPA 
regulations. Also like the ECOS project, the actual implementation of 
the XL project requires the adoption, and Federal authorization, of 
State regulations.
    Following the adoption of EPA's special Project XL regulations, 
both Massachusetts and Vermont adopted regulations setting alternative 
standards for laboratories at the participating universities. The 
Vermont regulations were authorized by the EPA and became part of the 
Federally enforceable Vermont RCRA program on October 26, 2000. See 65 
FR 64164. The Massachusetts regulations are in effect under State law 
and recently were submitted to the EPA to be authorized as part of the 
current update of the Massachusetts RCRA program.

B. Why Is the EPA Extending the Expiration Date of Its XL Project 
Regulations?

    The New England Universities' Laboratories XL project was initially 
planned to run for four years (September 1999 through September 2003). 
Thus the EPA project regulations had an expiration date of September 
30, 2003. See 40 CFR 262.108.
    The EPA conducted a mid-term evaluation of the project between 
September 2001 and September 2002. As set out in the mid-term 
evaluation report, the project has shown great success in some 
important areas: developing EMPs, training staff, increasing awareness, 
shifting attitudes and behaviors, improving the range of activities 
that determine compliance and emergency preparedness, and demonstrating 
that the environmental management system approach to managing 
laboratory waste is gaining hold and making progress. See Project in 
Excellence and Leadership: New England Universities' Laboratories Mid-
Term Evaluation: Piloting Superior Environmental Performance in Labs, 
EPA 100-R-02-005 (September 2002), page 5. On the other hand, the 
project has not to date shown the expected successes in other areas 
such as chemical reuse and redistribution and pollution prevention. Id. 
The implementation of the EMPs proved to be complex, and took somewhat 
longer than anticipated, resulting in delays in aggressively focusing 
on reuse, redistribution and pollution prevention. However, efforts to 
encourage pollution prevention and ``Green Chemistry'' practices have 
begun to be more widely endorsed by faculty, and the EPA hopes and 
expects that they will bear fruit in the next several years.
    Taking account of both the progress that has been made and the 
remaining issues, the EPA (with the concurrence of the MADEP and VTDEC) 
believes that the appropriate course of action is to extend the 
project's expiration date by three years, i.e., to September 30, 2006. 
This will allow for a further period of evaluation, including a further 
test of whether the universities will succeed in their efforts to 
implement significant chemical reuse and redistribution and pollution 
prevention. In light of the success that has occurred in EMP 
development and implementation, the EPA believes that the continuation 
of this project should provide a superior level of environmental 
performance in comparison to an immediate return to standard RCRA 
regulation.
    In addition, the EPA Office of Solid Waste currently is analyzing 
issues regarding the management of hazardous waste in laboratories, 
using a discussion group of EPA Headquarters and Regional personnel, 
and stakeholder meetings. This process may result in changes to the EPA 
requirements or the way the EPA interprets its requirements regarding 
laboratories. The proposed three-year extension of the New England 
Universities' Laboratories XL project will allow the three 
participating universities to continue to follow the alternative 
project requirements while the EPA considers whether to make changes in 
national policy. This will avoid those universities needing to 
terminate the project, prior to the EPA having a chance to consider 
whether standard RCRA requirements applicable

[[Page 11811]]

to university laboratories should be changed. The continuation of the 
project also should provide information that is useful to the EPA as it 
analyzes the potential national impact of making changes regarding the 
management of hazardous waste in laboratories.

C. What Is the Federal Regulation Change?

    The Federal regulation change is extending the expiration date in 
40 CFR 262.108 from September 30, 2003 to September 30, 2006. The other 
special EPA regulations adopted to allow the implementation of the New 
England Universities' Laboratories XL project are staying the same. The 
regulation change is set out at the end of this document. This 
regulation change is taking effect immediately upon today's publication 
in the Federal Register. Having the regulation take effect immediately 
is justified under RCRA section 3010(b), 42 U.S.C. 6930(b) and under 
the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d), since this 
regulation change simply allows the EPA to extend an ongoing XL project 
and the regulated entities involved in the project do not need any 
further time to come into compliance with the requirements of this 
project. The EPA Administrator has delegated one-time authority to the 
Regional Administrator, EPA New England, to make this regulation 
change.
    As part of its recent update, Massachusetts has similarly changed 
its State regulations to extend the expiration date of this XL project 
to September 30, 2006. The EPA and other signatories also are amending 
the Final Project Agreement for this XL project to extend the 
expiration date, with annual reporting obligations also being extended 
and all other provisions of the agreement remaining the same.

D. What Will Be the Effect of the Federal Regulation Change?

    The change to the Federal regulations is enabling the EPA to today 
authorize the Massachusetts regulations governing the New England 
Universities' Laboratories XL project, through September 30, 2006. The 
State regulations (310 CMR 30.354) have been submitted to the EPA to be 
authorized as part of this current update of the Massachusetts RCRA 
program. The EPA is granting this authorization to run through 
September 30, 2006.
    The different effects of authorization regarding HSWA and non-HSWA 
rules was discussed above in part II.D. The extension to the Federal XL 
project regulation is being promulgated pursuant to non-HSWA authority. 
Thus, the extension took effect in under State law following its recent 
adoption by Massachusetts, and the requirements of the alternative XL 
program are becoming Federally enforceable today, through September 30, 
2006, with respect to the two universities in Massachusetts, due to 
today's authorization of the State regulations by the EPA.

E. Response to Public Comments

    The EPA received one comment supporting the extension of the XL 
project. No comments were filed opposing extension of the project or 
authorization of this program element.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    The EPA has examined the cumulative effects of the State 
authorization decisions discussed above, and the two changes to the 
Federal regulations, and reached the conclusions set out below.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (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 effect 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 entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof;
    (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.
    Because the annualized cost of these actions will be significantly 
less than $100 million and because these actions will not meet any of 
the other criteria specified in the Executive Order, it has been 
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under the terms of the Executive Order and is therefore not subject to 
OMB review.

B. 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 final rule. These actions 
authorize or enable the authorization of state requirements for the 
purpose of RCRA 3006 and impose no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. Therefore, they require no information collection 
activities subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. In addition, no 
Federal reporting obligations have been established under the ECOS 
project. Rather, the EPA will monitor this project through its regular 
oversight of the Massachusetts RCRA program. Finally, the New England 
Universities' Laboratories XL project applies to only three 
universities, and any reporting obligations for nine or fewer sources 
are not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore no 
information collection request (ICR) was submitted to OMB for review 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally 
requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or 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.
    These actions authorize or enable the authorization of state 
requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and impose no additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. In addition, the two 
Federal regulatory changes will increase regulatory flexibility, which 
should have a positive economic effect on small entities. In 
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact, 
since the primary purpose of any regulatory flexibility analysis would 
be to identify and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any 
significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 
U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or

[[Page 11812]]

otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities 
subject to the rule. Accordingly, the EPA hereby certifies that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.). Thus a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required to 
be prepared under that Act.

D. 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, the 
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 a EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the 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 the 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. In addition, before the 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 about the 
regulatory requirements, enabling officials of affected small 
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of 
the EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental 
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on 
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the section 202 and 205 requirements do 
not apply to this action because the 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 State program, and the actions 
will not impose any additional obligations on regulated entities. In 
fact, the EPA's approval of State programs generally may reduce, not 
increase, compliance costs for the private sector, by reducing the need 
for companies to comply with Federal requirements in addition to State 
requirements. 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, such 
as Massachusetts' voluntary decision to operate the RCRA program.
    Because this action will authorize pre-existing requirements under 
state law and will not impose any additional enforceable duties beyond 
those required by state law, it also will not uniquely affect small 
governments, as described in section 203 of UMRA. Thus the requirements 
of section 203 that the EPA develop a small government agency plan will 
not apply to this rule.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires the 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.''
    The actions will not have Federalism implications, as defined in 
the Executive Order, because they merely authorize (or enable the 
authorization of) state requirements as part of the State RCRA 
hazardous waste program, without altering the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA.

F. 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 the 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 the Indian tribes.''
    The actions will not have tribal implications, as defined by the 
Executive Order, because they will have no direct effect on Indian 
lands. As noted in Part I.E. above, Massachusetts is not authorized to 
administer the RCRA program in Indian country. Rather, the EPA directly 
administers the Federal RCRA program in Indian country within 
Massachusetts.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks,'' applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13045 because it is not 
an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. 
In addition, it does not concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect 
on children.
    As discussed in parts II and III above, the EPA has determined that 
the regulatory flexibility to be allowed by the two Federal regulatory 
changes will not create health and safety risks. In any event, the 
particular RCRA program elements affected do not pose any 
disproportionate risks to children. As discussed in part I above, the 
standard authorization portion of this rule simply authorizes 
Massachusetts regulations which are equivalent to previously 
established Federal RCRA requirements. Authorizing State regulations 
which equivalently protect the environment, in place of Federal 
regulations, does not create any disproportionate risks to children.

[[Page 11813]]

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because that 
Executive Order applies only to rules that are ``significant'' under 
Executive Order 12866, and this rule is not a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866.

I. 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 OMB, explanations when the Agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    This rule does not involve technical standards covered by voluntary 
consensus standards. In addition, under RCRA section 3006(b), the EPA 
grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State 
meets the criteria required under RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent 
with applicable law for the EPA, when it reviews a State authorization 
application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus 
standard in place of another standard that satisfies the requirements 
of RCRA. Therefore, the EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary 
consensus standards in developing this rule.

J. Congressional Review Act

    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. EPA is submitting a report containing this document 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 in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect 
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This 
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This 
action will be effective immediately upon today's publication in the 
Federal Register.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 262

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous materials 
transportation, Indian-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: The Federal regulation changes are being made under 
the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
sections 2002 and 3002, 42 U.S.C. 6912 and 6922. The authorizations 
of the Massachusetts revisions are being made under the authority of 
RCRA sections 2002 and 3006, 42 U.S.C. 6912 and 6926.

    Dated: March 3, 2004.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 262--STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for part 262 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922-6925, 6937, and 6938.

Subpart A--General

0
2. Section 262.10 is amended by adding paragraph (k) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  262.10  Purpose, scope and applicability.

* * * * *
    (k) Generators in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts may comply with 
the State regulations regarding Class A recyclable materials in 310 
C.M.R. 30.200, when authorized by the EPA under 40 CFR part 271, with 
respect to those recyclable materials and matters covered by the 
authorization, instead of complying with the hazardous waste 
accumulation requirements of Sec.  262.34, the reporting requirements 
of Sec.  262.41, the storage facility operator requirements of 40 CFR 
parts 264 and 265 and the permitting requirements of 40 CFR part 270. 
Such generators must also comply with any other applicable 
requirements, including any applicable authorized State regulations 
governing hazardous wastes not being recycled and any applicable 
Federal requirements which are being directly implemented by the EPA 
within Massachusetts pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Amendments of 1984.

Subpart J--University Laboratories XL Project--Laboratory 
Environmental Management Standard

0
3. Section 262.108 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  262.108  When will this subpart expire?

    This subpart will expire on September 30, 2006.

PART 271--REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE 
PROGRAMS

0
EPA is granting Final authorization under part 271 to the Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts for revisions to its hazardous waste program under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

[FR Doc. 04-5644 Filed 3-11-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P