99-12747. State of Alabama; Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Revision; Withdrawal of Alabama's Class II UIC Program  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 98 (Friday, May 21, 1999)]
    [Proposed Rules]
    [Pages 27744-27747]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-12747]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
    40 CFR Part 147
    
    [FRL-6347-5]
    
    
    State of Alabama; Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 
    Revision; Withdrawal of Alabama's Class II UIC Program
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking, public hearing and public 
    comment period on withdrawal.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: EPA announces a proposed rulemaking, public hearing and public 
    comment period regarding withdrawal of Alabama's Class II Underground 
    Injection Control (UIC) Program from the State Oil and Gas Board of 
    Alabama on the grounds that it does not regulate as ``underground 
    injection,'' hydraulic fracturing associated with coalbed methane gas 
    production. This program is currently approved by EPA under section 
    1425 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended. This action is 
    being taken in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the Writ of Mandamus 
    issued on February 18, 1999, by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 
    Eleventh Circuit and the requirements in 40 CFR 145.34(b)(2).
        By court order, the Regional Administrator for EPA's Region 4 
    Office informed the State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama of specific 
    areas of alleged noncompliance regarding its approved UIC Program. 
    Specifically, EPA informed the State that, consistent with the Eleventh 
    Circuit's ruling in LEAF v. EPA, hydraulic fracturing associated with 
    coalbed methane gas production must be regulated as an ``underground 
    injection'' under Alabama's UIC Program. Withdrawal of the Alabama 
    program would, if completed, divest Alabama of primary enforcement 
    authority under the SDWA to regulate Class II Wells, including 
    hydraulic fracturing associated with coalbed methane gas wells within 
    Alabama.
        EPA is proceeding at this time with this proposed rulemaking, 
    notice of public hearing, and notice of public comment period in order 
    to comply with paragraph 2(a) of the Writ of Mandamus because hydraulic 
    fracturing associated with coalbed methane gas production is not 
    currently regulated as underground injection (by permit or rule) 
    pursuant to the EPA-approved underground injection control program for 
    Alabama.
        At the public hearing, all interested persons shall be given the 
    opportunity to make written or oral presentations on EPA's proposed 
    action to withdraw approval of Alabama's Section 1425 approved Class II 
    Program on the grounds of its failure to regulate as ``underground 
    injection'' hydraulic fracturing associated with coalbed methane gas 
    production. In addition, comments may be submitted as provided herein.
    
    DATES: The public hearing will be held Wednesday, July 28, 1999, at 
    5:30 p.m. Central Standard Time (CST).
        Written comments on EPA's proposed rule must be received by the 
    close of business Thursday, August 5, 1999.
    
    ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held at the Tuscaloosa Public 
    Library, Rotary Room, 1801 River Road, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401. Those 
    interested should contact the Tuscaloosa Public library at (205) 345-
    5820 for directions.
        Persons wishing to comment are invited to submit oral or written 
    comments at the public hearing or submit written comments to the Ground 
    Water/Drinking Water Branch, Ground Water & UIC Section, United States 
    Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal 
    Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, Attention: Mr. 
    Larry Cole.
        Copies of documents regarding this action are available between 
    8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following 
    locations for inspection and copying: Environmental Protection Agency, 
    Region 4, 9th Floor Library, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 
    Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, PH: (404) 562-8190; and 
    the State Oil & Gas Board of Alabama, 420 Hackberry Lane, Tuscaloosa, 
    AL 35489-9780, PH: (205) 349-2852.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nancy Marsh, at (404) 562-9450, or 
    Mr. Larry Cole, at (404) 562-9474 or at the following address: 
    Environmental Protection Agency, Water Management Division, Ground 
    Water/Drinking Water Branch, Ground Water & UIC Section, Sam Nunn 
    Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-
    8960.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    I. Background Information
    
        On August 2, 1982, EPA granted primary enforcement responsibility 
    (primacy) for the Class II Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 
    under section 1425 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to the State 
    of Alabama. The SDWA requires EPA to approve an effective in-place 
    state UIC Program to protect Underground Sources of Drinking Water 
    (USDW) from endangerment that could result from the improper injection 
    of fluids associated with, among other things, oil and gas production. 
    On May 3, 1994, the Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. 
    (LEAF) submitted a petition to EPA to withdraw Alabama's UIC Program 
    asserting that the State was not regulating activities associated with 
    coalbed methane gas production wells. Following EPA's May 5, 1995 
    denial of the petition, LEAF sought review of this decision by the 
    United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On August 7, 
    1997, in LEAF v. EPA, 118 F. 3d 1467 (11th Cir. 1997), the Court held 
    as follows: hydraulic fracturing activities constitute ``underground 
    injection'' under Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act, id. at 1478; 
    all underground injection is required to be regulated (by permit or 
    rule), id. at 1474;
    
    [[Page 27745]]
    
    and hydraulic fracturing associated with coalbed methane gas production 
    is not currently regulated under Alabama's UIC Program, id. at 1471. On 
    February 18, 1999, the Eleventh Circuit issued a Writ of Mandamus 
    directed at EPA to enforce its August 1997 decision. The Writ 
    established a schedule for EPA to follow to determine whether, in light 
    of the Court's holding regarding hydraulic fracturing, EPA should 
    withdraw approval of Alabama's UIC Program.
        In response to the LEAF decision and the Writ of Mandamus, EPA must 
    review Alabama's UIC Program in accordance with federal regulations at 
    40 CFR 145.34(b). The timing of EPA's review and decision-making 
    process must adhere to the time frame contained in the Writ of 
    Mandamus. In order to comply with the Writ of Mandamus and 40 CFR 
    145.34(b)(2), EPA must hold a public hearing no less than 60 days nor 
    more than 75 days, following the publication of this notice of the 
    hearing in the Federal Register. In order to comply with this time 
    frame, Region 4 has decided to hold a public hearing on July 28, 1999, 
    at the time and place indicated in the previous section. All interested 
    persons shall be given the opportunity to make written or oral 
    presentation at the public hearing on whether EPA should withdraw 
    Alabama's Class II UIC Program on the ground that it does not regulate 
    as ``underground injection'' hydraulic fracturing associated with 
    coalbed methane gas production.
    
    Alabama Class II UIC Section 1425 Program Deficiencies
    
        The State Oil & Gas Board of Alabama is not regulating hydraulic 
    fracturing of coalbed methane gas production wells as ``underground 
    injection'' (by permit or rule) pursuant to its EPA-approved 
    underground injection control program.
    
    Withdrawal Procedure
    
        Section 1425 of the SDWA and subsequent published EPA guidance does 
    not contain express procedures for the withdrawal of a Section 1425 
    Program. EPA has promulgated procedures for withdrawing a Section 1422 
    Program at 40 CFR 145.34(b). In lieu of different express regulatory 
    provisions for the withdrawal of Section 1425 Programs and in light of 
    the Court's Writ of Mandamus, EPA is following the procedures at 40 CFR 
    145.34(b) in proposing to withdraw Alabama's Section 1425 Program.
        On March 19, 1999, the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 4 
    notified the Supervisor of the State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama of 
    EPA's decision to initiate the process to withdraw approval of the 
    Alabama UIC Program. The Regional Administrator's notice to the 
    Supervisor of the State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama constituted the 
    first step in the withdrawal process. According to the procedures 
    established in 40 CFR 145.34(b) and the Writ of Mandamus, the State was 
    given 30 days after the notice to demonstrate that its UIC Program is 
    in compliance with the SDWA and 40 CFR part 145 (i.e., that hydraulic 
    fracturing associated with methane gas production is regulated as 
    ``underground injection,'' by permit or rule, pursuant to the EPA 
    approved Underground Injection Control Program).
        The Supervisor of the State Oil and Gas Board responded to the 
    Regional Administrator's letter by a letter dated April 15, 1999. The 
    response indicated that on March 5, 1999, the State Oil & Gas Board of 
    Alabama promulgated rules which regulate hydraulic fracturing of 
    coalbed methane gas wells by rule authorization. These new regulations 
    were added as an Emergency Order and sent to the Alabama Legislative 
    Reference Service under Section 41-22-5 of the Code of Alabama (1975). 
    They became effective on March 11, 1999, for a period of no longer than 
    120 days. The State Oil & Gas Board expects the rules to be made 
    permanent prior to the expiration of the Emergency Order. To become 
    part of the EPA approved UIC Program, Alabama should submit a revised 
    UIC Program package containing new regulations to EPA for review and 
    approval. These new regulations must protect current and potential 
    USDWs from endangerment.
        The State will not have fully corrected the identified program 
    deficiencies consistent with the requirements of the Writ of Mandamus 
    until a revised Alabama Section 1425 Program has been approved by EPA. 
    Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR 145.34(b)(2), the Regional 
    Administrator of Region 4 is soliciting comments on the appropriateness 
    of withdrawing the Class II UIC Program from the State Oil & Gas Board 
    of Alabama on the grounds that it does not, as currently approved by 
    EPA, regulate as ``underground injection'' hydraulic fracturing 
    associated with methane gas production. This action constitutes the 
    second step in the withdrawal process set out in 40 CFR 145.32(b) and 
    the Writ of Mandamus. Following the public hearing and close of the 
    public comment period, EPA will fully evaluate the record in this 
    matter. If EPA determines that the State is still not in compliance, 
    the Administrator will notify the State.
        Within 90 days of receipt of that notification, the State of 
    Alabama must fully implement any required remedial actions regarding 
    regulating hydraulic fracturing or the State's Class II UIC Program 
    will be withdrawn. Class II program approval will, however, not be 
    withdrawn if Alabama can demonstrate that hydraulic fracturing 
    associated with methane gas production is regulated as ``underground 
    injection'' (by permit or rule) pursuant to the EPA approved 
    underground injection control program. If EPA withdraws approval of the 
    Alabama Class II Program pursuant to the requirement of 40 CFR 
    145.32(b) and the Writ of Mandamus, it will propose and promulgate a 
    federal program for Class II wells located in Alabama, including 
    hydraulic fracturing associated with methane gas production.
        EPA is providing a public comment period regarding withdrawal of 
    the Alabama Class II UIC Program for failure to adequately regulate 
    hydraulic fracturing associated with methane gas production as 
    ``underground injection.'' Public comments received on or before close 
    of business on August 5, 1999, will be considered in EPA's final 
    evaluation of the State of Alabama Section 1425 Program. Comments may 
    be submitted at the public hearing to be held on July 28, 1999, at 5:30 
    p.m., CST in the Rotary Room of the Tuscaloosa Public Library located 
    at 1801 River Road, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401.
    
    II. Regulatory Impact/Administrative Requirements
    
    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 OMB review and the requirements of the 
    Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
    one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    
        (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more 
    or adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, 
    competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or 
    state, local, or tribal governments or communities;
        (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
    an action taken or planned by another agency;
        (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
    grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of 
    recipients thereof; or
        (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
    mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
    the Executive Order.
    
    
    [[Page 27746]]
    
    
        It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
    regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
    therefore not subject to OMB review.
    
    B. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
    
        Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
    Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies 
    to any rule that:
        (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined 
    under Executive Order 12866; and,
        (2) Concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has 
    reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
        If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must 
    evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule 
    on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to 
    other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
    considered by the Agency.
        EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory 
    actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the 
    analysis required under Section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to 
    influence the regulations. This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 
    because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. 
    Further, this rule does not establish an environmental standard 
    intended to mitigate health or safety risks. This rule proposes to 
    withdraw federal approval of Alabama's UIC Class II Program in response 
    to a court order to do so. However, the requirements of the Alabama UIC 
    Class II Program relating to underground injection will remain in 
    effect as a matter of State law. Additionally, if EPA withdraws the 
    State approved Class II UIC Program, EPA will promulgate a replacement 
    federal program. Therefore, this proposed rule does not present any 
    foreseeable effect on children's health and well being.
    
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    
        There are no information collection requirements established by 
    this proposed rule. Therefore, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not 
    apply.
    
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
    as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
    (SBREFA), EPA generally is required to conduct a regulatory flexibility 
    analysis describing the impact of the regulatory action on small 
    entities as part of rulemaking. However, under section 605(b) of the 
    RFA, if EPA certifies that the proposed rule will not have a 
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
    EPA is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. 
    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 
    605(b), the Regional Administrator certifies that this proposed rule 
    will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
    small entities. The proposed rule merely proposes to withdraw federal 
    approval of the UIC Program for Class II wells in the State of Alabama, 
    except for those in Indian lands. Withdrawal of such approval does not 
    change the regulatory requirements that currently apply to such wells 
    as a matter of State law, nor does it add additional federal regulatory 
    requirements.
    
    E. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
    
        Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
    not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local 
    or tribal government, unless the federal government provides the funds 
    necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
    governments or EPA consults with those governments.
        If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA 
    to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the 
    extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected 
    state, local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, any 
    written communications from the governments, and a statement supporting 
    the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12785 
    requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
    officials and other representatives of state, local and tribal 
    governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
    of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
        Today's proposed rule does not create a mandate on a state, local 
    or tribal government. The proposed rule does not impose any enforceable 
    duties on these entities. The rule merely proposes to withdraw federal 
    approval of Alabama's UIC Class II Program. However, the requirements 
    of that Program relating to underground injection will remain in effect 
    as a matter of State law. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 1(a) 
    of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this proposed rule.
    
    F. 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 proposed rule. The provisions of section 
    205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. 
    Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the 
    least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if 
    the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
    alternative was not adopted.
        Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may 
    significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
    governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a 
    small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
    potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
    small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
    development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal 
    intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
    small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
        Today's proposed rule contains no federal mandates (under the 
    regulatory provision of Title II of the UMRA), for state, local or 
    tribal governments, or the private sector. The proposed rule imposes no 
    enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the 
    private sector. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the 
    requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has also 
    determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements 
    that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, 
    today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 
    of UMRA.
    
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    
        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
    
    [[Page 27747]]
    
    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 and procurement activities unless to do so would be 
    inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
    consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., material 
    specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) 
    that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. 
    The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 
    when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary 
    consensus standards.
        This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
    Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
    standards.
    
    H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
    Tribal Governments
    
        Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
    not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
    communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
    direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the federal 
    government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
    costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
    governments.
        If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA 
    to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately 
    identified section of the preamble to the proposed 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 and other representatives of Indian Tribal 
    governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
    of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect 
    their communities.''
        Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
    communities of Indian Tribal governments. This proposed rule does not 
    affect the UIC Program on Indian Tribal lands. Accordingly, the 
    requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
    this proposed rule.
    
    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 147
    
        Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Water 
    supply.
    
        Dated: May 13, 1999.
    John H. Hankinson, Jr.,
    Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    
        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 147 is 
    proposed to be amended as follows:
    
    PART 147--[AMENDED]
    
        1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 42 U. S. C. 300h; and 42 U. S. C. 6901 et seq.
    
    Subpart B--Alabama
    
    
    Sec. 147.50  [Removed]
    
        2. Section 147.50 is removed.
    
    [FR Doc. 99-12747 Filed 5-18-99; 11:31 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
05/21/1999
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Proposed Rule
Action:
Notice of proposed rulemaking, public hearing and public comment period on withdrawal.
Document Number:
99-12747
Dates:
The public hearing will be held Wednesday, July 28, 1999, at 5:30 p.m. Central Standard Time (CST).
Pages:
27744-27747 (4 pages)
Docket Numbers:
FRL-6347-5
PDF File:
99-12747.pdf
CFR: (1)
40 CFR 147.50