[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 116 (Thursday, June 17, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32436-32441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15436]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 244
[FRL-6362-4]
Solid Waste Programs; Management Guidelines for Beverage
Containers; Removal of Obsolete Guidelines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is removing 40 CFR part 244, Solid Waste Management
Guidelines for Beverage Containers, from the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) because it is obsolete. The activities addressed in
these 1976 guidelines have been included in numerous state and local
statutes and regulations and other federal rules, or have been
superseded by such Presidential actions as Executive Order 12873 as
amended by Executive Order 13101. Deleting these guidelines from the
CFR will have no measurable impact on solid waste management.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule takes effect on July 19, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Gallman (703) 308-7276, U.S.
EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 401 M Street, SW,
(5306W), Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
On March 4, 1995, the President directed all federal agencies and
departments to conduct a comprehensive review of the regulations they
administer and, by June 1, 1995, to identify those rules that are
obsolete or unduly burdensome. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) conducted a review of all its rules, including rules issued under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Based on the review,
EPA is today removing 40 CFR part 244 guidelines from the CFR.
On December 31, 1996, EPA published a direct final rule (61 FR
69032) removing from the CFR two guidelines pertaining to solid waste
management which are obsolete, 40 CFR parts 244 and 245. EPA noted at
that time that if adverse comments were received, it would withdraw the
direct final rule and address the comments received in a subsequent
final rule. Because EPA received adverse comments with respect to the
removal of 40 CFR part 244, Solid Waste Management Guidelines for
Beverage Containers, the direct final rule for part 244 was withdrawn
on May 2, 1997 (62 FR 24051). EPA subsequently reviewed all comments
and is addressing them in this final rule. No adverse comments were
received on the removal of part 245 and that final rule was effective
on December 31, 1997 (63 FR 683).
II. Background
On September 21, 1976, EPA issued guidelines, 40 CFR part 244
(Solid Waste Management Guidelines for Beverage Containers), for
federal
[[Page 32437]]
agencies for reducing beverage container waste. The guidelines were
mandatory (although not enforceable) for federal facilities and
recommended for adoption by state and local governments and private
agencies. EPA intended these guidelines to achieve a reduction in
beverage container solid waste and litter, resulting in savings in
waste collection and disposal costs to the federal government. The
Agency also intended these guidelines to achieve the conservation and
more efficient use of energy and material resources through the
development of effective beverage distribution and container collection
systems. EPA hoped that the guidelines would achieve these goals by
making all beverage containers on federal facilities returnable and
encouraging reuse or recycling of the returned containers. To
accomplish the return of a beverage container, a deposit of at least
five cents on each returnable beverage container was to be paid upon
purchase by the consumer and refunded to the consumer when the beverage
container was returned for reuse or recycling. The guidelines allow
federal agencies to cease implementation of the provisions in various
situations where the requirements are not practical.
EPA believed these guidelines would be important because, when
these guidelines were promulgated in 1976, there were few requirements
for recycling beverage containers or other materials. In fact, EPA has
found no evidence to suggest that federal agencies developed beverage
container programs in response to the guidelines. Instead, federal
agencies have met the challenge of recycling by implementing, in-house
or by contract, programs for collection of a variety of recyclable
materials, including beverage containers. Many state and local
governments now require or encourage such collection programs. Under
RCRA section 6001, federal facilities must meet such municipal or state
recycling requirements. Furthermore, in 1993, President Clinton issued
Executive Order 12873, ``Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste
Prevention'', which was amended in 1998 by Executive Order 13101,
``Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and
Federal Acquisition.'' Section 705 of the Executive Order requires each
Executive agency that has not already done so to initiate a program to
promote cost effective waste prevention and recycling of reusable
materials in all of its facilities. Recycling programs implemented
pursuant to section 705 must be compatible with applicable state and
local government programs to promote recycling and waste reduction in
the community. Agencies must designate a recycling coordinator for each
facility or installation. The recycling coordinator must implement or
maintain waste prevention and recycling programs in the agencies'
action plans. Executive agencies must also consider cooperative
ventures with State and local governments to promote recycling and
waste reduction in the community.
III. Analysis of and Response to Public Comments on Removal of 40
CFR Part 244
EPA invited public comment on the proposed removal of part 244
during a 60-day period and received 13 comments. Nine of the comments
received opposed EPA's action, while four offered support for removing
part 244. This section presents the findings of EPA's follow-up
research pertinent to each major comment. General comments opposed to
EPA's action are discussed first, followed by those in support.
A. Comments Opposed to Removal of Part 244
Most of the comments opposed to removal of 40 CFR part 244 focused
on similar issues. In general, commenters felt that the beverage
deposit guidelines for federal facilities should be continued and
strengthened, rather than withdrawn. A summary of these comments and
EPA's findings that address these comments are provided below.
Comment on Deposit Effectiveness: Nine commenters supported
beverage deposit programs in general, while three commenters encouraged
deposits as the most effective means of collecting beverage containers
at federal facilities and encouraged EPA to strengthen, rather than
withdraw, the guidelines.
Findings Addressing This Comment: 40 CFR part 244 does not
establish beverage deposit programs in general, but focuses on federal
facilities. EPA's decision to withdraw the part 244 beverage containers
guidelines should not be viewed as reflecting any position on the
adoption of beverage deposit programs by State or local governments.
Therefore, this discussion will not cover the merits or drawbacks of
beverage deposit programs (often called ``bottle bills'') in general.
EPA, however, has concluded that these specific federal guidelines
are obsolete, primarily because they have been supplemented by more
comprehensive federal recycling programs and by local and state
requirements. When EPA issued part 244 in 1976, there was limited
collection of beverage containers for recycling in federal facilities.
Since that time, considerable progress has been made to collect and
recycle many items, including beverage containers. Recycling collection
programs are now required by many state and local governments around
the country. Under RCRA Section 6001, federal facilities are required
to meet these municipal and state recycling requirements. In addition,
in 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12873, ``Federal
Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention'', which was amended in
1998 by Executive Order 13101, ``Greening the Government Through Waste
Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition.'' Section 705 of the
Executive Order requires each executive agency to initiate a program to
promote cost effective waste prevention and recycling of reusable
materials. These programs must be compatible with State and local
requirements at all of its facilities. Agencies must designate a
recycling coordinator for each facility to implement or maintain
programs in the agencies' action plans and must also consider
cooperative ventures with State and local governments to promote
community programs.
In response to comments, EPA also attempted to gather more complete
information on the current extent of collection of beverage containers
at federal facilities. While there is no uniform, comprehensive
database, there is information on some of the federal collection
efforts.
EPA's research shows that, among these federal efforts, both the
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) and Department of Defense
(DOD) service branches have active recycling efforts that are providing
collection services to a large number of government employees.
Facilities owned, operated, and leased by GSA and the military branches
comprise the largest portion of federal facilities. In addition, many
of these programs include comprehensive and integrated waste reduction
and recycling programs, taking an approach that is broader than
beverage container recycling alone. With the success of these programs,
there is no need for a separate guideline on beverage container
collection for federal facilities.
Although DOD does not separately track beverage containers, all
military facilities are required to have a solid waste plan and a
recycling collection program in place. It is our understanding that the
armed services are near 100 percent in compliance with the DOD
recycling policy. According to the 1995 DOD Defense Environmental
[[Page 32438]]
Quality Program annual report, the armed forces collected approximately
1.7 billion pounds of material for recycling in calender year 1994,
exceeding its targeted goal. The report indicates the armed forces
surpassed its targeted goal in 1993, as well. In addition, Navy and
Marine Corps installations generating more than 1 ton of solid waste
per day are required to report every year on the amount of material
recycled at each facility. The 1995 Navy and Marine Corps Solid Waste
Annual Report documents that the Navy and Marine Corps collected more
than 1,800 tons of aluminum cans and more than 3,200 tons of glass for
recycling in fiscal year 1995. Overall, the report indicates a steady
increase in the amount of materials collected for recycling among the
Navy and Marine Corps since fiscal year 1990.
GSA reported an active recycling program that includes each of the
agency's 11 regions. More than 530,000 federal employees in more than
1,100 federal buildings nationwide participated in GSA's recycling
program in fiscal year 1996. During that year, GSA collected 44,527
tons of recyclables, including beverage containers, mixed paper,
plastics, newspaper, and corrugated cardboard. This includes 112 tons
of used beverage containers and 359 tons of glass (primarily beverage
containers). In addition, GSA received nearly $863,000 from the sale of
recovered materials. Employee participation in recycling programs at
GSA buildings averaged 60 percent, demonstrating widespread support for
recycling.
In the direct final rule, which EPA published on December 31, 1996,
the Agency concluded that the part 244 guidelines were obsolete because
federal facilities were recycling beverage containers in compliance
with E.O. 12873. In addition, EPA determined that the guidelines should
be withdrawn because federal facilities were complying with state and
local solid waste management statutes and regulations that relate to
collection and recycling of beverage containers. 61 FR 69032, 69033.
The reports that EPA has obtained from DOD and GSA discussed above
verify the conclusions set forth in the direct final and proposed
rules.
We have no indication that the beverage container recycling
activities at federal facilities as described above are a result of the
part 244 guidelines. In fact, after review of agency records described
earlier and discussions with federal personnel, we have no information
regarding any federal facility which is implementing the full deposit
and refund system outlined in part 244.
EPA's research showed a general lack of awareness on the part of
key facility personnel regarding the existence of part 244. This is
largely the result of the guidelines being over twenty years old and
largely superseded by more recent and comprehensive recycling mandates.
Some personnel stated they did not feel the provision was necessary
because they already have an adequate recycling collection program in
place and are making steady progress toward their recycling goals.
EPA's research also found that the logistics of placing a deposit
on beverage containers sold within a federal facility and returning
that deposit to the consumer would be difficult. DOD recycling
officials, for example, noted that implementing a container deposit
system would result in complicated and burdensome accounting and
management procedures. Returning the deposit may involve additional
expenses or oversight on the part of the agency involved, as part 244
requires that the refund be provided at the point of sale whenever
possible and, in any event, on the premises of the federal facility. In
addition, beverage distributors would be required to place a label or
sticker on beverage containers destined exclusively for sale at federal
facilities; they might be reluctant to participate in this system
without appropriate compensation.
In addition, 40 CFR part 244 exempts federal agencies from
implementing the regulation in situations where the requirements are
not practical. Therefore, any federal agency that considers the
logistical issues mentioned above too difficult and burdensome to
implement might consider themselves exempt under this provision given
their current successful recycling programs.
For the reasons described above, EPA believes that cost-effective
and efficient beverage container recycling programs have now been
established at federal facilities. These programs are required by
statute and by Executive Order. Thus, we have concluded that rather
than seek a means for improving upon or strengthening the pre-existing
management guidelines for beverage containers so that federal agencies
would implement the guidelines, it is more efficient and will likely be
more effective over the long term for federal facilities to seek to
improve their current beverage container recycling programs consistent
with statutory requirements and Executive Order 13101.
General Comments on Litter Reduction: Several commenters stated
that deposits on beverage containers help to reduce litter, and that
litter reduction should be a national goal.
Findings Addressing This Comment: EPA considers litter prevention
to be a laudable goal and supports programs to educate and inform the
public about the benefits of litter reduction and waste prevention.
EPA's research shows that voluntary recycling programs at federal
facilities have diverted significant quantities of beverage containers
and other recyclables from the waste stream. These programs complement
the efforts of litter reduction programs. While beverage container
deposit systems may also help reduce litter, part 244 focuses on
deposit systems at federal facilities, which are principally office
buildings. EPA believes that the part 244 deposit requirements are
unnecessary for federal facilities for this and the other reasons
described in this section.
Comment Regarding Retention and Enforcement of Part 244: According
to several commenters, there is a lack of enforcement of 40 CFR part
244.
Findings Addressing This Comment: RCRA section 4005(c)(2)(A)
authorizes the Administrator to enforce the prohibition against open
dumping in any state that the Administrator has determined has not
adopted an adequate program for facilities receiving hazardous
household waste (``HHW'') or conditionally exempt small quantity
generator (``CESQG'') waste. However, the part 244 solid waste
management guidelines pertaining to beverage containers at issue in
this rulemaking are not federal criteria for facilities which may
receive HHW or CESQG waste that EPA has issued under RCRA sections 4004
or 4010. Nor were the beverage container guidelines intended to be
adopted by states as part of a permit program to ensure compliance with
such federal criteria. The Agency issued the part 244 guidelines
instead under RCRA sections 1008 and 6004. Thus, EPA has no explicit
authority in RCRA subtitle D, RCRA sections 1008 and 6004, or part 244
itself to enforce administratively or judicially the beverage container
guidelines against federal facilities.
Comment in Support of Retaining Part 244 and Increased Recycling
Rates: A commenter stated that without ``bottle bill states,'' the
recycling rate for beverage containers would be much less nationally,
and that if part 244 was enforced, recycling rates for beverage
containers would double and potentially triple current levels at
federal facilities in states without bottle bills.
[[Page 32439]]
Findings Addressing This Comment: As noted earlier, part 244 does
not address ``bottle bill'' programs in general. EPA's research did not
find data to address the impact of a beverage deposit container system
on beverage container recovery rates at federal facilities. Such an
analysis would be complicated by the predominance of office building
settings in federal agencies (plus some residences in military
agencies). Thus, there is no evidence available that would show higher
recycling rates for containers in office settings due to deposit
systems relative to drop-off systems typically used in federal office
buildings. The overall impact of beverage deposit systems in this
context is impossible to determine. However, the principal objective of
40 CFR part 244 was to establish the federal government as a leader in
the collection of materials for recycling and to provide the impetus
for new programs nationwide. As described elsewhere in this preamble,
actions taken by the federal government at the direction of the
President through Executive Order 12873 and the recently issued
Executive Order 13101 demonstrate that agencies have made substantive
and sustained progress towards implementing and expanding recycling
programs.
B. Comments in Support of Removing Part 244
Comment on Impractical Expenses: Several commenters supported the
removal of 40 CFR part 244, citing its impracticality and possible
expenses. Commenters also stated that the system is unnecessary,
considering that other, more comprehensive recycling collection
programs are already in place.
Findings Addressing These Comments: EPA's research was focused on
identifying existing recycling collection programs at federal
facilities and did not address the economics of deposit programs in
general. EPA concurs that the recycling of materials has been
successfully accomplished in many federal facilities via more
comprehensive solid waste management programs that include a wider
range of materials than those addressed by a beverage container deposit
system alone. In addition, as described previously in this preamble,
EPA's research indicated that personnel at federal facilities consider
the provisions of 40 CFR part 244 to be impractical and difficult to
implement which could be cited as a basis for not implementing a bottle
deposit system. When the requirements of part 244 were explained,
facility personnel expressed strong reservations regarding their
ability to implement the deposit system, citing logistical issues and
lack of personnel to implement the regulation. Facility personnel
discussed practical barriers ranging from ensuring the redemption of
collected materials to requiring that beverage containers carry a label
or stamp indicating the deposit amount.
IV. EPA's Decision Based on Comments Received
With the implementation of federal collection programs, state and
local recycling collection mandates and programs, RCRA section 6001 and
E.O. 12873, as amended by E.O. 13101, the need for separate guidelines
for federal facilities on beverage containers has passed. Therefore,
EPA is removing 40 CFR part 244 from the Code of Federal Regulations.
V. Analysis Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must determine whether a
regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to OMB review
and the other provisions of the Executive Order. A significant
regulatory action is defined by Executive Order 12866 as one that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect 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 entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or rights and obligations or 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
Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
within the meaning of E.O. 12866.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally requires an agency to prepare, and make available for public
comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of
a proposed or final rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
the Agency certifies that today's final rule will not have a
significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Today's rule is deregulatory in nature. The effect of today's final
rule is to remove obsolete guidelines which are mandatory only for
Federal facilities but that, for various reasons, have generally not
been implemented. Therefore, EPA certifies that today's rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As a result, no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is needed.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The removal of these guidelines from the CFR merely reflects their
current obsolescence and thus has no significant regulatory impact.
There is no affect on requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
VIII. 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 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.'' 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 Executive Order 12875 do not apply to
this rule.
[[Page 32440]]
IX. 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 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.'' Today's rule
does not affect the communities of Indian tribal governments.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to this rule.
X. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
``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 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 involve decisions based on environmental health or safety
risks.
XI. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub. L. 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
final rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not
considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
XII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 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.
The Agency's analysis of compliance with the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 found that the proposed action imposes no
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the
private sector; thus today's rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
XIII. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
Under Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations,'' as well as through EPA's April 1995, ``Environmental
Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agenda
Report,'' and National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, EPA has
undertaken to incorporate environmental justice into its policies and
programs. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice
concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice
initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of the
United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the
population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income,
bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and
activities, and all people live in clean and sustainable communities.
The Agency does not believe, however, that today's rule deleting these
obsolete solid waste management guidelines for beverage containers will
have an adverse environmental or economic impact on any minority or
low-income group, or on any other type of affected community.
XIV. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
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 will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and
[[Page 32441]]
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule 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 by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective July 19, 1999.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 244
Environmental protection, Beverages, Government property,
Recycling.
Dated: June 10, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Under the authority of 42 U.S.C. sections 6907, 6912, 6961, and
6964, Title 40, Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 244--[REMOVED]
1. Part 244 is removed.
[FR Doc. 99-15436 Filed 6-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
