[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55153-55158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26332]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL-6454-1]
Massachusetts: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's action finalizes EPA's decision to grant authorization
to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for certain revisions to its
hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). The revisions addressed by this action include two rules
promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency: the Toxicity
Characteristics (TC) Rule (including subsequent revisions to that rule)
and the Universal Waste Rule (UWR). The Agency finds that the State's
hazardous waste program revisions, except for a provision which relates
to the TC Rule and exempts intact Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) from
hazardous waste regulation, satisfy all of the requirements necessary
to qualify for final authorization. Thus, the EPA is taking action to
approve the authorization of Massachusetts for the UWR and the TC Rule
for all wastes other than CRTs. At this time, EPA defers action
relating to CRTs; however, the agency plans to address this issue in a
future Federal Register document.
DATES: The approval of Massachusetts' program revisions shall become
effective without further notice on October 12, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' revision
application and related materials which support the basis for EPA's
authorization decision (the ``Administrative Record'') are available
for inspection and copying during normal business hours at the
following addresses: Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection Library, One Winter Street--2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02108,
business hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Telephone: (617) 292-5802 and
EPA Region I Library, One Congress Street--11th Floor, Boston, MA
02114-2023, business hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Telephone: (617)
918-1990.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Biscaia, EPA Region I, One
Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CHW), Boston, MA 02114-2023; Telephone:
(617) 918-1642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?
States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
Section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must
change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to
State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or
regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur.
Most commonly, States must change 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 Decisions Have We Made In This Rule?
1. Background
On January 8, 1998, Massachusetts submitted a final program
revision application relating to the Satellite Accumulation Rule, UWR
and TC Rule seeking authorization of its program revision in accordance
with 40 CFR 271.21. On Septemer 30, 1998, the EPA granted authorization
to the Massachusetts hazardous waste management program for the
Satellite Accumulation Rule only and deferred a decision relative to
the TC and UWR portions of the application due to the unresolved CRT
issues (63 FR 52180).
2. The Proposed Rule
On February 24, 1999 EPA published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule announcing its plan to authorize Massachusetts for the TC
Rule and the UWR excluding those provisions which relate to CRTs (64 FR
9110). Also, at that time, the agency proposed to disapprove a
provision of the Massachusetts hazardous waste regulations at 310 CMR
30.104(21) relating to CRTs. A forty-five (45) day extension to the
thirty (30) day comment period of this proposal was requested by
Massachuetts and granted in the Federal Register on March 24, 1999 (64
FR 14201) thereby extending the public comment period from March 26,
1999 to May 10, 1999.
3. Recent Developments
Since the publication of the proposed disapproval, the EPA and
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
[[Page 55154]]
(``DEP'') have discussed a new regulatory approach with respect to
CRTs. The DEP currently is seeking input from its Hazardous Waste
Advisory Committee regarding this new approach.
4. Comments to the Proposed Rule
EPA has received comments on the proposed rule Federal Register
document from various sources, all of which relate solely to CRTs. The
EPA is not responding to these comments at this time. Rather, if the
DEP revises its regulations to adopt the new approach, the EPA plans to
publish a new proposed rule in the Federal Register prior to any final
approval, inviting public comment on the new approach. If, on the other
hand, the EPA and DEP do not reach final agreement on the CRT issue,
the EPA will publish a future final Federal Register notice setting out
its final decision on the current DEP regulations and will respond to
all comments that have been filed at that time. No final action
regarding the CRT issue is being taken by the EPA at this time.
5. The Decision
Today's action finalizes the Agency's approval for final
authorization of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for program
revisions which cover the TC Rule and UWR except as they relate to
CRTs. We conclude that Massachusetts' application to revise its
authorized program, excluding provisions which relate to the regulation
of CRTs, meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts final authorization to operate its hazardous waste
program with the changes described in the authorization application
except for those that relate to CRTs. Massachusetts has responsibility
for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)
within its borders (except in Indian country) and for carrying out the
aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program
application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New federal requirements and
prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under
the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are
authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will continue to implement
those requirements and prohibitions in Massachusetts for which the
state is not authorized, including issuing permits for those provisions
until the State is granted authorization to do so.
6. Technical Corrections
Additionally, EPA is making a technical correction to a provision
referenced in its immediate final rule published in the Federal
Register on September 30, 1998 (effective November 30, 1998) which
authorized the State for the Satellite Accumulation Rule (63 FR 52180).
This technical correction is described in section G below.
C. What is the Effect of Today's Authorization Decision?
The effect of this decision is that a facility in Massachusetts
subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the newly authorized State
requirements instead of the equivalent federal requirements in order to
comply with RCRA. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has enforcement
responsibilities under its state hazardous waste program for violations
of such program, but EPA also retains its full authority under RCRA
sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003.
This action does not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the state regulations for which
Massachusetts is being authorized by today's action have already been
in effect under state law, and are not changed by today's action.
D. What Has Massachusetts Previously Been Authorized For?
Massachusetts initially received Final Authorization on January 24,
1985, effective February 7, 1985 (50 FR 3344) to implement its base
hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for
changes to their program regarding satellite accumulation on September
30, 1998, effective November 30, 1998 (63 FR 52180).
E. What Changes Are We Authorizing With Today's Action?
On January 8, 1998 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts submitted a
final program revision application seeking authorization of their
changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make a final decision
that Massachusetts' hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of
the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization.
Therefore, we grant the Commonwealth of Massachusetts final
authorization for the following program changes which cover the UWR and
TC Rule except as they relate to CRTs:
The TC Rule was promulgated on March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11798) under
the authority of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to
RCRA and refines and expands EPA's Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity
Characteristics Rule promulgated on May 19, 1980 (49 FR 33084). On May
11, 1995 (60 FR 25492) EPA promulgated the UWR which contains new
streamlined hazardous waste management regulations governing the
collection and management of certain widely generated wastes
(batteries, pesticides and thermostats) known as universal wastes. In
addition, the regulation contains a provision for a petition process
through which additional wastes can be added.
The specific RCRA program revisions for which EPA authorizes 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 abbreviations are used in
defining analogous state authority: MGL = Massachusetts General Laws;
CMR = Code of Massachusetts Regulations.
[[Page 55155]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Federal Requirement and Checklist Reference Number Analogous State Authority 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Checklist for the Toxicity Characteristic Revisions as of June MGL c 21C Secs. 4 and 6, enacted 11/9/79; 310 CMR 30.099(25) adopted 11/9/
30, 1994 90, 30.104(13) adopted 10/17/97, 30.105 adopted 11/17/95, 30.125B adopted
(74) Toxicity Characteristic Revisions: 55 FR 11798, 3/29/90 as amended 11/9/90, 30.130 adopted 11/9/90, and 30.155B adopted 11/9/90 and amended
on 6/29/90 55 FR 26986; 10/17/97.
(80) Hydrocarbon Recovery Operations: 55 FR 40834, 10/5/90 as amended on (The Massachusetts regulatory citations above are approved except as they
2/1/91, 56 FR 3978 as amended on 4/2/91, 56 FR 13406, optional rule (MA relate to CRTs.)
is not seeking authorization for this provision);
(84) Chlorofluoro Refrigerants: 56 FR 5910, 2/13/91, optional rule, (MA
is not seeking authorization for this provision);
(108) Toxicity Characteristics Revision; Technical Correction: 57 FR
30657, 7/10/92;
(117B) Toxicity Characteristic Revision: 57 FR 23062, 6/1/92,
(correction not applicable; MA is not seeking authorization for this
provision);
(119) Toxicity Characteristic Revision, TCLP: 57 FR 55114, 11/24/92,
optional rule (MA is not seeking authorization for this provision).
Universal Waste Rule Checklists 142 A-E MGL c 21C Secs. 4 and 6, enacted 11/9/79 and MGL c 21E Sec. 6, enacted
(142A) Universal Waste Rule: General Provisions, 60 FR 25492-25551, 5/11/ July 20, 1992; 310 CMR 30.010, 30.130, 30.143(2), 30.340(1), 30.351(2)(b)6
95; and 30.351(3), 30.353(2)(b)5 and 30.353(3), 30.392(8), 30.393(6),
(142B) Universal Waste Rule: Specific Provisions for Batteries, 60 FR 30.501(2)(e), 30.601(2)(e), 30.801(14), and 30.1000 adopted on 10/17/97.
25492-25551, 5/11/95;
(142C) Universal Waste Rule: Specific Provisions for Pesticides, 60 FR
25492-25551, 5/11/95;
(142D) Universal Waste Rule: Specific Provisions for Thermostats, 60 FR
25492-25551, 5/11/95;
(143E) Universal Waste Rule: Petition Provisions to Add a New Universal
Waste, 60 FR 25492 25492-25551, 5/11/95;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commonwealth of Massachusetts' provisions are from the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, 310 CMR 30.000, Hazardous Waste Regulations, adopted
October 17, 1997.
The specific State regulation not covered in this action is 310 CMR
30.104(21) which falls under 310 CMR 30.104, ``Wastes Not Subject 310
CMR 30.000'' and identifies intact CRTs as a waste not subject to
Massachusetts' hazardous waste regulations. EPA is limiting its
approval of the State's TC Rule regulations to all wastes except CRTs.
F. Where Are the Revised State Rules Different From the Federal
Rules?
Under the provisions of the State's UWR program, there are several
differences related to the way in which universal wastes are regulated.
First, as allowed by EPA's UWR (40 CFR part 273, subpart G), the State
program includes additional waste streams; i.e., mercury-containing
devices and mercury containing lamps are included as universal wastes
(310 CMR 30.1081). The inclusion of these additional wastes, however,
is viewed as equivalent to the federal rule rather than broader in
scope (or less stringent) as the federal rule allows a petition process
by which additional wastes may be added. Massachusetts has adopted a
rulemaking process rather than a petition process to include additional
wastes under its universal waste program, a provision the EPA also
considers equivalent.
Related to the coverage of batteries under the UWR, Massachusetts,
as required by The Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery
Management Act of May 13, 1996 (``The Battery Act''), (Public Law 104-
142), has implemented state requirements governing the collection,
storage and transportation of batteries which are identical to EPA's
UWR requirements. There are differences from the federal requirements
regarding how Massachusetts regulates batteries, but the EPA has
determined that they do not concern the ``collection, storage or
transportation'' of batteries, where the State is required to be
identical. For example, the EPA has determined that the State's
requirement regarding site closure (described below) is not within what
is preempted by the Battery Act. The differences, and the reasons why
the EPA has determined that there is no preemption, are set forth in
the EPA's Administrative Record, which is available for public review.
We consider the following State requirements to be more stringent
than the Federal requirements:
310 CMR 30.155B(10) requires quality assurance/quality
control procedures (QA/QC) in the State's TCLP test which are more
stringent than the analogous federal procedures as the State has not
adopted EPA's changes to QA/QC procedures under the TC Rule (40 CFR
part 261, appendix II, 8.2, 8.4 and 8.5).
310 CMR 30.1033(4), 30.1043(5) and 30.1061 cover state
closure requirements which specifies that handlers who cease operations
shall comply with state closure requirements at 310 CMR 30.689, which
require removal of waste and site decontamination. This provision
covers all of the State's universal wastes (including batteries).
310 CMR 30.1043(a), (b) require large quantity handlers of
universal waste (other than batteries) to notify the State of their
universal waste activity even though they may have previously provided
notification for hazardous waste activity; the federal requirement does
not require such re-notification.
310 CMR 30.1033(3) requires small quantity generators to
submit a change of status request in anticipation of accumulating 5,000
kg or more of universal waste (other than batteries); there is no such
federal requirement.
310 CMR 30.1010 does not allow transfer facilities (except
for batteries) as defined in 40 CFR 273.6.
310 CMR 30.1034(3)(b)(7) requires that ampules, once
removed from thermostats, be fully regulated as a hazardous waste.
Under the federal UWR program, ampules removed from thermostats are
subject to the less restrictive UWR management standards
[[Page 55156]]
unless they are leaking and exhibit a characteristic of hazardous
waste, in which case they must be managed in accordance with EPA's
hazardous waste requirements (40 CFR 273.13(c)(3) and 273.33(c)(3)).
These requirements are part of Massachusetts' authorized program
and are federally enforceable.
We also consider the following State requirements go beyond the
scope of the Federal program:
310 CMR 30.1034(5)(c)(2) and 30.1044(5) requires
dismantling/crushing operations of small and large quantity generators
who recycle crushed fluorescent bulbs to obtain a State recycling
permit. There is no federal permitting requirement for recycling
activities per se, although storage prior to recycling could trigger
the federal part B permit requirements of 40 CFR part 264.
310 CMR 30.392(8) and 30.393(6). The State UWR program
also has a provision regarding the household hazardous waste collection
events in which universal wastes may be collected. The regulation of
this event is a broader-in-scope provision as there is no analogous
federal component. However, the EPA also has determined that these
State provisions (insofar as they cover universal wastes) do not result
in the State program being non-equivalent to the federal program under
RCRA or non-identical under The Battery Act.
Broader-in-scope requirements are not part of the authorized
program and EPA does not enforce them. Although sources must comply
with these requirements in accordance with state law, they are not
federal RCRA requirements.
G. What Technical Corrections Are Addressed by Today's Action?
On September 30, 1998, EPA published its decision to authorize
Massachusetts for revisions that relate to EPA's Satellite Rule (see 63
FR 52180). In the regulatory crosswalk table of that notice, EPA cited
an incorrect date of 12/29/84 on which EPA promulgated its Satellite
Rule at 49 FR 49568. Note, this document corrects the date cited in the
regulatory crosswalk on which EPA's Satellite Rule was promulgated to
read 12/20/84.
H. Who Handles Permits After This Authorization Takes Effect?
Massachusetts will issue permits for all the provisions for which
it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will
continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of
permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this
authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for
HSWA requirements for which Massachusetts is not yet authorized.
I. How Does Today's Action Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. Section
115) In Massachusetts?
Massachusetts is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste
program in Indian country within the State. Therefore, this action has
no effect on Indian country. EPA will continue to implement and
administer the RCRA program in these lands.
J. What Is Codification and Is EPA Codifying Massachusetts'
Hazardous Waste Program as Authorized in This Rule?
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. We do this by referencing
the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We are today
authorizing, but not codifying, the enumerated revisions to the
Massachusetts program. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272,
subpart W for the codification of Massachusetts' program until a later
date.
K. Regulatory Analysis and Notices
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.
EPA has determined that section 202 and 205 requirements do not
apply to today's action because this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and/or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the
private sector. Costs to State, local and/or tribal governments already
exist under the Massachusetts' program, and today's action does not
impose any additional obligations on regulated entities. In fact, EPA's
approval of State programs generally may reduce, not increase,
compliance costs for the private sector. Further, as it applies to the
State, this action does not impose a Federal intergovernmental mandate
because UMRA does not include duties arising from participation in a
voluntary federal program.
The requirements of section 203 of UMRA also do not apply to
today's action because this rule contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Although
small governments may be hazardous waste generators, transporters, or
own and/or operate TSDFs, they are already subject to the regulatory
requirements under the existing State laws that are being authorized by
EPA, and, thus, are not subject to any additional significant or unique
requirements by virtue of this program approval.
Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking
for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). This analysis is
[[Page 55157]]
unnecessary, however, if the agency's administrator certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
The EPA has determined that this authorization will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Such small entities which are hazardous waste generators, transporters,
or which own and/or operate TSDFs are already subject to the regulatory
requirements under the existing State laws that are now being
authorized by EPA.
The EPA's authorization does not impose any significant additional
burdens on these small entities. This is because EPA's authorization
would simply result in an administrative change, rather than a change
in the substantive requirements imposed on these small entities.
Pursuant to the provision at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Agency hereby
certifies that this authorization will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This authorization
approves regulatory requirements under existing State law to which
small entities are already subject. It does not impose any new burdens
on small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a regulatory
flexibility analysis.
Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. This rule is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Compliance With Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Executive Order 12866.
Compliance With Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies
with consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the
Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's
prior consultation with representatives of affected State, local and
tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
This rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. The State administers its hazardous waste program
voluntarily, and any duties on other State, local or tribal
governmental entities arise from that program, not from this action.
Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to
this rule.
On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued a new executive order
on federalism, Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999)
which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the interim, the current
Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987) on federalism
still applies. This rule will not have 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 12612
because this rule affects only one State. In addition, this rule simply
approves the State's proposal to be authorized for updated requirements
in the hazardous waste program that the state has voluntarily chosen to
operate. Finally, as a result of this action, for provisions enacted
pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA),
those newly authorized provisions of the State's program now apply in
Massachusetts in lieu of the equivalent Federal program provisions.
Affected parties are subject only to those authorized state program
provisions, as opposed to being subject both to the Federal and State
program provisions.
Compliance With Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks,'' applies to any rule that: (1) The
Office of Management and Budget determines is ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) Concerns
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an
economically significant rule as defined by E.O. 12866, and because it
does not concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has
reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
Rather, this rule simply applies previously established health and
safety requirements with respect to the Massachusetts state RCRA
program.
Compliance with Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies with consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13084 because it does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments.
[[Page 55158]]
Massachusetts is not authorized to implement the RCRA hazardous waste
program in Indian country. This action has no effect on the hazardous
waste program that EPA implements in the Indian country within the
State.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal
agencies must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information
request contained in a proposed rule or a final rule. This rule will
not impose any non-federal information requirements upon the regulated
community.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve imposing federal technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Incorporation by reference, Indian lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply.
Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections
2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended
42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Dated: September 29, 1999.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
[FR Doc. 99-26332 Filed 10-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
