[Federal Register: January 24, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 16)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3429-3430]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24ja03-17]
[[Page 3429]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL-7442-8]
Ohio: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is granting Ohio final authorization of revisions to
its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA published a proposed rule on October 21, 2002,
and provided an opportunity for public comment. The public comment
period ended on December 5, 2002. EPA received no comments. No further
opportunity for public comment will be provided. EPA has determined
that Ohio's revisions satisfy all requirements necessary for final
authorization and is authorizing Ohio's revised program through this
final action.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Final authorization for revisions to Ohio's hazardous
waste management program will become effective on January 24, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Judy Feigler, Ohio Regulatory
Specialist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Waste, Pesticides and
Toxics Division (DM-7J), 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604,
phone number: (312) 886-4179.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?
States that have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program which is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
than the federal program. As the federal program changes, states must
revise their programs and ask EPA to authorize the revisions. Revisions
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 revise their programs because of changes to
EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,
260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
B. What Were the Comments and Responses to EPA's Proposal?
On October 21, 2002, EPA published a proposed rule (see 67 FR
64594). In the rule, EPA proposed granting authorization of revisions
to Ohio's hazardous waste program and provided an opportunity for
public comment. EPA received no comments on the proposal.
C. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule?
EPA has determined that Ohio's revisions to its authorized program
meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA.
Therefore, EPA grants Ohio final authorization to operate its hazardous
waste program with the revisions described in the authorization
application. Ohio now 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 promulgated by EPA under the authority of HSWA take effect
in authorized states before the states are authorized for the
requirements. Thus, EPA implements those requirements and prohibitions
in Ohio, including issuing permits, until Ohio is granted authorization
to do so.
D. What Revisions Are We Authorizing With Today's Action?
On June 25, 2002, Ohio submitted a complete program revision
application, seeking authorization of its revisions in accordance with
40 CFR 271.21. EPA now makes a final decision that Ohio's hazardous
waste management program, as revised, satisfies all requirements under
RCRA necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, EPA
grants Ohio final authorization for the program revisions described in
the October 21, 2002, proposed rule (67 FR 64594). For further details,
see the October 21, 2002 proposed rule.
E. What Is the Effect of Today's Authorization Decision?
The effect of this decision is that a facility in Ohio that is
subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized state
requirements in lieu of the corresponding federal requirements in order
to comply with RCRA. Such facilities must also comply with any
applicable federally-issued requirements, such as, for example, HSWA
regulations issued by EPA for which Ohio has not received
authorization, and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by
authorized state-issued requirements. Ohio will issue permits for all
provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits
that it issues. Ohio continues to have enforcement responsibility under
its state hazardous waste management program for violations of that
program, but EPA retains authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013
and 7003 (42 U.S.C. 6927, 6928, 6934 and 6973) which includes, among
others, the authority to:
[sbull] Conduct inspections and require monitoring, tests, analyses
or reports;
[sbull] Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits;
and
[sbull] Take enforcement action regardless of whether Ohio has
taken its own actions.
Today's action to approve these revisions does not impose
additional requirements on the regulated community because the
regulations included in the program revisions affected by this
authorization decision are already effective under state law and are
not changed by today's action.
F. Who Handles Permits After the Authorization Takes Effect?
Ohio will issue permits for all provisions for which it is
authorized and will administer the permits that it issues. EPA will
continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of
permits that EPA issued prior to the effective date of this
authorization, until they expire or are terminated. EPA will not issue
any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions for
which Ohio is authorized after the effective date of this
authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for
HSWA requirements for which Ohio is not yet authorized.
G. What Has Ohio Previously Been Authorized for?
Ohio initially received final authorization effective June 30, 1989
(54 FR 27170-27174, June 28, 1989) to implement the RCRA hazardous
waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to
Ohio's program effective June 7, 1991 (56 FR 14203, April 8, 1991), as
corrected June 7, 1991 (56 FR 28808, June 19, 1991); effective
September 25, 1995 (60 FR 51244, July 27, 1995); and effective December
23, 1996 (61 FR 54950, October 23, 1996).
H. What Is the Effect of Authorizing Ohio for These Revisions on Indian
Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Ohio?
Ohio is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in
``Indian
[[Page 3430]]
country,'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian country includes:
1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations
within or abutting the State of Ohio;
2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and
3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation that
qualifies as Indian country. Therefore, this action has no effect on
Indian country. EPA retains the authority to implement and administer
the RCRA program in Indian country. However, at this time, there is no
Indian country within the State of Ohio.
I. What Is Codification and Is EPA Codifying Ohio's Hazardous Waste
Program as Authorized in This Rule?
Codification is the process of placing a 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 reserve the amendment
of 40 CFR part 272, subpart P, for authorization of Ohio's program
revisions until a later date.
J. Administrative Requirements
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted RCRA authorization
from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB.
Furthermore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006
and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. This authorization will effectively suspend the applicability of
certain federal regulations in favor of Ohio's program, thereby
eliminating duplicate requirements in the state. Authorization will not
impose any new burdens on small entities. Accordingly, I certify that
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action authorizes pre-existing
requirements under state law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4). This action does not have tribal implications within
the meaning of Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on
the relationship between the national government and the states, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes state requirements as
part of the state RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental
health or safety risks. This action does not include environmental
justice-related issues that require consideration under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7929, February 16, 1994).
Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA grants a state's application for
authorization as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA.
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it
reviews a state authorization application, to require the use of any
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard
that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in
issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under the executive order.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
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 document and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined 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, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
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: January 9, 2003.
Bharat Mathur,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 03-1626 Filed 1-23-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P