[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 4, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23780-23782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11037]
[[Page 23780]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL-6333-2]
Missouri: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision for Corrective Action
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Immediate final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Missouri has applied for final authorization of the revision
to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). This revision package covers authorization for
corrective action. The EPA has reviewed Missouri's application and
determined that its hazardous waste program revision satisfied all of
the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Unless
adverse written comments are received during the review and comment
period, the EPA's decision to authorize Missouri's hazardous waste
program revision will take effect. The EPA is publishing this rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register
publication, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve
as the proposal to approve the revision for corrective action should
relevant adverse comments be filed.
DATES: Final authorization for Missouri will become effective without
further notice on July 6, 1999, if the EPA receives no adverse comment
by June 3, 1999. Should the EPA receive such comments, the EPA will
withdraw this rule before its effective date by publishing a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Heather Hamilton, U.S.
EPA Region VII, ARTD/RESP, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas
66101. Copies of Missouri's program revision application are available
for inspection and copying during normal business hours at the
following address: Hazardous Waste Program, Missouri Department of
Natural Resources, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0176
(573) 751-3176.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton, U.S. EPA Region VII,
ARTD/RESP, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101 (913) 551-
7039.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
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 the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.
B. Missouri
On November 20, 1985, the EPA published a Federal Register notice
announcing its decision to grant final authorization for the RCRA base
program to the state of Missouri which became effective December 12,
1985 (50 FR 47740). Missouri received authorization for revisions to
its program as follows: February 27, 1989, effective April 28, 1989 (54
FR 8190); January 11, 1993, effective March 12, 1993 (58 FR 3497) and
on May 30, 1997, effective July 29, 1997 (62 FR 29301). Additionally,
the state adopted and applied for interim authorization for the
corrective action portion of the HSWA Codification Rule (July 15, 1985,
50 FR 28702). For a full discussion of the HSWA Codification Rule, the
reader is referred to the Federal Register cited above. The state was
granted interim authorization for the corrective action on February 23,
1994, effective April 25, 1994 (50 FR 8544). Missouri has now applied
for final authorization for the corrective action portion of the HSWA
Codification Rule, for which it previously received interim
authorization.
The EPA has reviewed Missouri's application for final authorization
for corrective action, and has made an immediate final decision that
Missouri's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the
requirements necessary to qualify. Consequently, the EPA intends to
grant final authorization for corrective action to Missouri. The public
may submit written comments on the EPA's immediate final decision up
until June 3, 1999. Copies of Missouri's application for the program
revision are available for inspection and copying at the locations
identified in the ADDRESSES section of this action.
Approval of Missouri's program revision shall become effective on
July 6, 1999 unless an adverse comment pertaining to the state's
revision discussed in this document is received by the end of the
comment period. If an adverse comment is received the EPA will publish
either: (1) A withdrawal of the immediate final decision, or (2) a
document containing a response to comments which either affirms that
the immediate final decision takes effect or reverses the decision.
The state will assume lead responsibility for issuing permits for
those program areas authorized today. For those permits which will now
change to state lead from the EPA, the EPA will transfer copies of any
pertinent file information to the state. The EPA will suspend issuance
of new permits under the provisions for which the state is being
authorized on the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will be
responsible for enforcing the terms and conditions of federally issued
permits while they remain in force. When the state reissues federally
issued permits as state permits, the EPA will rely on the state to
enforce them.
C. Decision
I conclude that Missouri's application for program revision meets
all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA.
Accordingly, Missouri is granted final authorization to operate its
hazardous waste programs as revised. Missouri now has responsibility
for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its
borders and carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in
its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the
HSWA. Missouri also has primary enforcement responsibilities, although
the EPA retains the right to conduct inspections under Section 3007 of
RCRA and take enforcement actions under Sections 3008, 3013, and 7003
of RCRA.
D. Administrative Requirements
1. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review.''
2. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, the 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
[[Page 23781]]
compliance costs incurred by those governments, or the EPA consults
with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875
requires the EPA to provide to the OMB a description of the extent of
the 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, E.O. 12875
required the 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 rule does not create a mandate on state, local, or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 1(a) of E.O. 12875
do not apply to this rule.
3. 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 E.O.
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 E.O. 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
4. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, the 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 incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA
consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting,
E.O. 13084 requires the EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately
identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the
extent of the 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,
E.O. 13084 requires the 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.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve
or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of Section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
5. Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking
for any proposed or Final rule, it must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). This analysis is
unnecessary, however, if the agency's administrator certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
The EPA has determined that this authorization will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Such small entities which are hazardous waste generators, transporters,
or which own and/or operate TSDFs are already subject to the regulatory
requirements under the existing state laws that are now being
authorized by the EPA. The EPA's authorization does not impose any
significant additional burdens on these small entities. This is because
the 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 EPA 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.
6. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205,
the EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent
with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish
a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs
of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action
approves preexisting requirements under state or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
7. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal
agencies must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information
request contained in a proposed rule or a final rule. This rule will
not impose any information requirements upon the regulated community.
8. 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
[[Page 23782]]
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the
EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
9. 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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection, administrative practice and procedure,
confidential business information, hazardous materials transportation,
hazardous waste, Indian lands, intergovernmental regulation, penalties,
reporting and record keeping requirements, water pollution control,
water supply.
Authority: This document 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: April 13, 1999.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII.
[FR Doc. 99-11037 Filed 5-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
