Massachusetts: Extension of Interim Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision, 69900-69903 [05-22891]
Download as PDF
69900
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
purposes. The Compact Council
Chairman shall refer the response letter
to the Sanctions Committee for
appropriate action.
(4) If no response letter is received
under paragraph (b)(3) of this section
within the allotted time, or if the
Sanctions Committee deems the
response to be insufficient, the
Sanctions Committee shall report its
finding to the Compact Council. If the
Compact Council agrees with the
Sanctions Committee’s finding, the
Compact Council Chairman or the FBI
Director or Designee shall direct the FBI
Compact Officer to take appropriate
action to suspend noncriminal justice
access to the III System by the offending
agency. If the offending agency is a
criminal justice agency, the Compact
Council Chairman shall request the
Director of the FBI to take appropriate
action to suspend noncriminal justice
access to the III System by the offending
agency.
(5) Reinstatement of full service by
the FBI shall occur after the Compact
Officer of the FBI or a Party State or the
chief administrator of the state
repository in a Nonparty State provides
satisfactory documentation that the
deficiencies have been corrected or a
process has been initiated to correct the
deficiencies. Upon approval of the
documentation by the Sanctions
Committee in consultation with the
Compact Council Chairman, the
Compact Council Chairman or the FBI
Director or Designee shall request the
FBI Compact Officer to take appropriate
action to reinstate full service. Letters to
this effect shall be sent to all persons
who have previously received letters
relating to the deficiencies and resulting
suspension of service. The decision to
reinstate full service shall be considered
for ratification by the Compact Council
at its next regularly scheduled meeting.
(c) For good cause, the Compact
Council Chairman and the FBI Director
or Designee shall be authorized to
extend the number of days allowed for
the response letters required by
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section.
§ 907.5
Sanction adjudication.
(a) A Compact Officer of the FBI or a
Party State or the chief administrator of
the state repository in a Nonparty State
may dispute a sanction under this Part
by asking the Compact Council
Chairman for an opportunity to address
the Compact Council.
(b) Unresolved disputes based on the
Compact Council’s issuance of sanctions
under this Part may be referred to the
Compact Council Dispute Adjudication
Committee when pertaining to disputes
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:27 Nov 17, 2005
Jkt 208001
described under ARTICLE XI(a) of the
Compact.
(c) Nothing prohibits the Compact
Council from requesting the FBI to
exercise immediate and necessary
action to preserve the integrity of the III
System pursuant to Article XI(b) of the
Compact.
Dated: November 1, 2005.
Donna M. Uzzell,
Compact Council Chairman.
[FR Doc. 05–22850 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–02–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL–7998–8]
Massachusetts: Extension of Interim
Authorization of State Hazardous
Waste Management Program Revision
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Immediate final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA is extending the
expiration date from January 1, 2006 to
January 1, 2011 for the interim
authorization under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, of the
Massachusetts program for regulating
Cathode Ray Tubes (‘‘CRTs’’).
Massachusetts was granted interim
authorization to assume the
responsibility under the Toxicity
Characteristics Rule (‘‘TC Rule’’) for
regulating CRTs, on November 15, 2000
with an expiration date of January 1,
2003. This expiration date was
subsequently extended until January 1,
2006. As this interim authorization is
soon due to expire, an extension is
needed for the reasons explained below.
EPA is publishing this rule to authorize
the extension without a prior proposal
because we believe this action is not
controversial and do not expect
comments that oppose it. Unless we get
written comments which oppose this
extension during the comment period,
the decision to extend the interim
authorization will take effect. If we get
comments that oppose this action, we
will publish a document in the Federal
Register withdrawing this rule before it
takes effect and the separate document
in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register will serve as the
proposal to authorize the changes.
DATES: This extension of the interim
authorization will become effective on
January 17, 2006 and remain in effect
until January 1, 2011 unless EPA
receives adverse written comment by
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
December 19, 2005. If EPA receives such
comment, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of this immediate final rule
in the Federal Register and inform the
public that this extended authorization
will not take immediate effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by
one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail: Robin Biscaia,
biscaia.robin@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Robin Biscaia, Hazardous
Waste Unit (CHW), EPA New England,
One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CHW),
Boston, MA 02114–2023;
4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
your comments to Robin Biscaia,
Hazardous Waste Unit, EPA New
England, One Congress Street, Suite
1100 (CHW), Boston, MA 02114–2023;
Instructions: We must receive your
comments by December 19, 2005. Do
not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through regulations.gov, or email. The Federal regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Dockets containing copies of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts’
revision application, the materials
which the EPA used in evaluating the
revision, and materials relating to the
State-specific and site-specific Federal
regulation changes, have been
established at the following two
locations: (i) Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection, Business
Compliance Division, One Winter
Street—8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108,
business hours Monday through Friday
9 a.m. to 5 p.m., tel: (617) 556–1096;
and (ii) EPA Region I Library, One
E:\FR\FM\18NOR1.SGM
18NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
B. What Decisions Have We Made in
This Rule?
FR 11798, 11847–11849 (March 29,
1990). CRTs are the glass picture tubes
found inside television and computer
monitors. Because of their high lead
content, CRTs generally fail the TCLP
test. Thus, under the EPA’s current
regulations, CRTs generally become
hazardous wastes when they are
discarded (e.g., when sent for disposal
or reclamation rather than being
reused). However, the EPA has
recognized that certain widely generated
wastes may pose lower risks during
accumulation and transport than other
hazardous wastes. Thus the EPA has
listed certain wastes as Universal
Wastes which are subject to reduced
regulation and has allowed authorized
States to add other appropriate wastes
as Universal Wastes. See 40 CFR part
273.
On August 4, 2000, Massachusetts
adopted regulations which revised its
regulatory program as it relates to CRTs.
The State adopted a three-part
approach: (1) Intact CRTs being
disposed are subject to full hazardous
waste requirements (along with crushed
or ground up CRTs); (2) intact CRTs that
may still be reused (without
reclamation) generally are considered
commodities exempt from hazardous
waste requirements; and, finally, (3)
intact CRTs which will not be reused,
but which instead will be crushed and
recycled (i.e., as spent materials being
reclaimed), are subject to reduced
requirements which track some but not
all of the EPA’s Universal Waste Rule
requirements. As explained in the
Federal Register on November 15, 2000,
65 FR 68915, and further explained in
a legal memorandum contained in the
Administrative Record, dated January
21, 2000 entitled ‘‘Massachusetts’
Regulation of CRTs,’’ the EPA
determined that the State program was
‘‘substantially equivalent’’ to Federal
RCRA requirements. Therefore, the EPA
granted Massachusetts interim
authorization to regulate CRTs under
the TC Rule. The State program was
determined to be only ‘‘substantially’’
rather than fully equivalent to the
federal RCRA program because the
maximum flexibility allowed under the
federal program was to regulate
hazardous CRTs being reclaimed as a
Universal Waste, whereas
Massachusetts regulates intact CRTs
heading to reclamation less stringently
in certain respects than does the
Universal Waste Rule.
1. Background
The TC Rule grants authority over
wastes which first became classified as
hazardous as a result of using the
‘‘TCLP’’ test, such as many CRTs. See 55
2. Today’s Decision
There have been no changes in either
the Federal or Massachusetts regulations
applicable to CRTs since November 15,
2000. Therefore, the State program
Congress Street—11th Floor, Boston,
MA 02114–2023, business hours
Monday through Thursday 10 a.m. to 3
p.m., tel: (617) 918–1990. Records in
these dockets are available for
inspection and copying during normal
business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit,
Office of Ecosystems Protection, EPA
New England, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100 (CHW), Boston, MA 02114–
2023, telephone: (617) 918–1642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Why Are Revisions to State
Programs Necessary?
Pursuant to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42
U.S.C. 6901 et seq., states which have
been authorized to administer the
Federal hazardous waste program under
RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C.
6926(b), have a continuing obligation to
update their programs to meet revised
Federal requirements. 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
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.
For example, States must revise their
programs to regulate the additional
wastes determined to be hazardous as a
result of using the Toxicity
Characteristics Leaching Procedure
(‘‘TCLP’’) test adopted by the EPA on
March 29, 1990, in the TC Rule 55 FR
11798. The EPA may grant final
authorization to a State revision if it is
equivalent to, consistent with, and no
less stringent than Federal RCRA
requirements.
In the alternative, as provided by
RCRA section 3006(g), 42 U.S.C.
6926(g), for updated Federal
requirements promulgated pursuant to
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), such as
the TC Rule, the EPA may grant interim
(i.e., temporary) authorization to a State
revision so long as it is substantially
equivalent to Federal RCRA
requirements.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:27 Nov 17, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69901
remains substantially equivalent (but
not fully equivalent) to current Federal
RCRA requirements, for the reasons
previously stated. Absent further EPA
action, the authority to regulate the
CRTs would revert to the EPA as of
January 1, 2006, and full hazardous
waste regulations would become
applicable to many CRTs in
Massachusetts.
Like Massachusetts, the EPA has
recognized that regulating intact CRTs
as a fully regulated hazardous waste can
discourage recycling of the CRTs and,
thus, be counter-productive. Therefore,
it is environmentally important not to
allow the interim authorization of the
Massachusetts regulations to expire.
On June 12, 2002, the EPA proposed
to adopt regulations to reduce RCRA
regulatory requirements for CRTs. See
67 FR 40508. If the proposed rule is
adopted, intact CRTs heading for
reclamation will no longer be classified
as solid or hazardous wastes. Thus, they
will no longer need to be handled in
accordance with either full hazardous
waste or Universal Waste Rule
requirements. Therefore, if and when
the proposed rule is adopted, the
Massachusetts CRT program will no
longer be less stringent than the federal
program. It will be equivalent to the
federal program in exempting
commodity CRTs from regulations while
fully regulating CRTs being disposed,
and will be more stringent than the
federal program in partially regulating
intact CRTs being reclaimed and in fully
regulating crushed or ground up CRTs
even when they are recycled. However,
the final EPA CRT rule is not expected
to be issued until after January 1, 2006.
The general deadline for the
expiration of interim authorization for
HSWA regulations set in 40 CFR 271.24
is January 1, 2003. The EPA believes
that extension of the interim
authorization of the Massachusetts CRT
program beyond the generally
applicable deadline of January 1, 2003
is appropriate in the unusual
circumstances presented. An extension
to January 1, 2011 will enable the
Massachusetts program to continue to
operate pending the EPA’s final
decision on its own CRT Rule. This
should give the EPA sufficient time to
finalize its own CRT Rule. If the final
EPA CRT Rule is the same as the
proposed rule or otherwise remains at
least as flexible as the Massachusetts
CRT Rule, then the EPA should be able
to later grant final authorization to the
Massachusetts CRT Rule, as soon as the
EPA CRT Rule is adopted. If the final
EPA CRT Rule is more stringent than
the Massachusetts CRT Rule, the EPA
E:\FR\FM\18NOR1.SGM
18NOR1
69902
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
and State can address the resulting
situation at that time.
C. What Is the Effect of Today’s
Authorization Decision?
The effect of this decision is that for
CRTs regulated under the TC Rule, a
facility in Massachusetts subject to
RCRA will have to continue to comply
with the authorized State requirements
instead of the Federal requirements in
order to comply with RCRA. The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts has
enforcement responsibilities under its
State hazardous and solid waste
programs for violations of such
programs, 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 interim
authorization to Massachusetts is being
extended by today’s action are already
in effect under state law, and are not
changed by today’s action.
D. Why Wasn’t There a Proposed Rule
Before Today’s Rule?
EPA did not publish a proposal before
today’s rule because we view this as a
routine program change and do not
expect comments that oppose this
approval. We are providing an
opportunity for public comment now. In
addition to this rule, in the proposed
rules section of today’s Federal Register
we are publishing a separate document
that proposes to authorize the State
program changes.
E. What Happens if EPA Receives
Comments That Oppose This Action?
If EPA receives comments that oppose
this authorization, we will withdraw
this rule by publishing a document in
the Federal Register before the rule
becomes effective. EPA will base any
further decision on the authorization of
the State program changes on the
proposal mentioned in the previous
paragraph. We will then address all
public comments in a later final rule.
You may not have another opportunity
to comment. If you want to comment on
this authorization, you must do so at
this time.
F. 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. EPA granted
authorization for changes to their
program on September 30, 1998,
effective November 30, 1998 (63 FR
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:27 Nov 17, 2005
Jkt 208001
52180), October 12, 1999, effective that
date (64 FR 55153) and March 12, 2004,
effective that date (69 FR 11801), in
addition to the previously discussed
November 15, 2000 interim
authorization of the Massachusetts CRT
Rule (65 FR 68915) and the extension
EPA granted to that rule on October 31,
2002, effective January 1, 2003 (67 FR
66338).
K. 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
G. What Changes Are We Authorizing
authorizing, but not codifying the
in Today’s Action?
enumerated revisions to the
Massachusetts program. We reserve the
The Massachusetts regulations
amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart
authorized by today’s action are the
same as those listed in the chart set forth W for the codification of Massachusetts’
program until a later date.
in the Federal Register document dated
L. Administrative Requirements
November 15, 2000 (65 FR 68915,
68918). Today’s action simply extends
The Office of Management and Budget
the interim authorization previously
has exempted this action from the
granted from January 1, 2006 to January requirements of Executive Order 12866
1, 2011.
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and
therefore this action is not subject to
H. Where Are the Revised State Rules
review by OMB. This action authorizes
Different From the Federal Rules?
State requirements for the purpose of
The differences between the State and RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional
Federal regulations with respect to CRTs requirements beyond those imposed by
are discussed in the November 15, 2000 State law. Accordingly, I certify that this
action will not have a significant
Federal Register document.
economic impact on a substantial
Notwithstanding these differences, the
number of small entities under the
EPA believes that the State regulations
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
are substantially equivalent to the
et seq.). Because this action authorizes
Federal regulations and, thus, the State
pre-existing requirements under State
continues to qualify to have interim
law and does not impose any additional
authorization. During the interim
enforceable duty beyond that required
authorization period, for CRTs regulated by State law, it does not contain any
under the TC Rule, these state
unfunded mandate or significantly or
regulations will operate in lieu of the
uniquely affect small governments, as
Federal hazardous waste regulations.
described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). For
I. Who Handles Permits After This
the same reason, this action also does
Authorization Takes Effect?
not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Tribal governments, as
Massachusetts will issue permits for
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
all the provisions for which it is
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
authorized and will administer the
action will not have substantial direct
permits it issues. EPA will continue to
effects on the States, on the relationship
administer any RCRA hazardous waste
permits or portions of permits which we between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
issued prior to the effective date of this
power and responsibilities among the
authorization. EPA will continue to
implement and issue permits for HSWA various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
requirements for which Massachusetts
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
is not yet authorized.
merely authorizes State requirements as
part of the State RCRA hazardous waste
J. How Does Today’s Action Affect
program without altering the
Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 115) in
relationship or the distribution of power
Massachusetts?
and responsibilities established by
Massachusetts is not authorized to
RCRA. This action also is not subject to
carry out its hazardous waste program
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
in Indian country within the State (land April 23, 1997), because it is not
of the Wampanoag tribe). Therefore, this economically significant and it does not
action has no effect on Indian country.
make decisions based on environmental
EPA will continue to implement and
health or safety risks. This rule is not
administer the RCRA program in these
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
lands.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\18NOR1.SGM
18NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
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.
Under RCRA 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 note) 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 rule 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). This
action, nevertheless, will be effective 60
(sixty) days after publication pursuant
to the procedures governing immediate
final rules.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:27 Nov 17, 2005
Jkt 208001
transportation, Indian 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: November 9, 2005.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 05–22891 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 224
[Docket No. 041213348–5285–02; I.D.
110904E]
RIN 0648–AS95
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants: Endangered Status for
Southern Resident Killer Whales
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NOAA’s National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) is issuing a
final determination to list the Southern
Resident killer whale distinct
population segment (DPS) as
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of (ESA) 1973. Following an
update of the status review of Southern
Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca)
under the ESA, NMFS published a
proposed rule to list the Southern
Resident killer whale DPS as threatened
on December 22, 2004. After
considering public comments on the
proposed rule and other available
information, we reconsidered the status
of Southern Residents and are issuing a
final rule to list the Southern Resident
killer whale DPS as an endangered
species. The prohibition on take of an
endangered species will go into effect at
the time this final rule is effective (see
DATES).
DATES: This final rule is effective
February 16, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials
received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation
of this final rule, are available for public
inspection by appointment during
normal business hours at the NMFS,
Protected Resources Division, 7600
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69903
Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA, 98115.
The final rule, references and other
materials relating to this determination
can be found on our website at
www.nwr.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Lynne Barre at the address above or at
(206) 526–4745, or Ms. Marta Nammack,
Office of Protected Resources, Silver
Spring, MD (301) 713–1401, ext. 180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 2, 2001, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity and 11 co-petitioners (CBD,
2001) to list Southern Resident killer
whales as threatened or endangered
under the ESA. On August 13, 2001, we
provided notice of our determination
that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that a listing may
be warranted and requested information
to assist with a status review to
determine if Southern Resident killer
whales warranted listing under the ESA
(66 FR 42499). To assist in the status
review, we formed a Biological Review
Team (BRT) of scientists from our
Alaska, Northwest, and Southwest
Fisheries Science Centers. We convened
a meeting on September 26, 2001, to
gather technical information from comanagers, scientists, and individuals
having research or management
expertise pertaining to killer whale
stocks in the North Pacific Ocean.
Additionally, the BRT discussed its
preliminary scientific findings with
Tribal, State and Canadian co-managers
on March 25, 2002. The BRT considered
information from the petition, the
September and March meetings, and
comments submitted in response to our
information request in preparing a final
scientific document on Southern
Resident killer whales (NMFS, 2002).
After conducting the status review,
we determined that listing Southern
Resident killer whales as a threatened or
endangered species was not warranted
because Southern Resident killer whales
did not constitute a species as defined
by the ESA. The ESA’s definition of
species includes subspecies and
‘‘distinct population segments.’’ The
agency considers a group of organisms
to be a DPS when it is both discrete
from other populations and significant
to the taxon to which it belongs (61 FR
4722; February 7, 1996). We considered
Southern Resident killer whales in the
context of the global taxon (i.e., all killer
whales worldwide) and found that the
population did not meet the significance
criterion for consideration as a DPS. The
finding, along with supporting
documentation, was published on July
E:\FR\FM\18NOR1.SGM
18NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69900-69903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22891]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL-7998-8]
Massachusetts: Extension of Interim Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Immediate final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is extending the expiration date from January 1, 2006
to January 1, 2011 for the interim authorization under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, of the Massachusetts program for
regulating Cathode Ray Tubes (``CRTs''). Massachusetts was granted
interim authorization to assume the responsibility under the Toxicity
Characteristics Rule (``TC Rule'') for regulating CRTs, on November 15,
2000 with an expiration date of January 1, 2003. This expiration date
was subsequently extended until January 1, 2006. As this interim
authorization is soon due to expire, an extension is needed for the
reasons explained below. EPA is publishing this rule to authorize the
extension without a prior proposal because we believe this action is
not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. Unless we
get written comments which oppose this extension during the comment
period, the decision to extend the interim authorization will take
effect. If we get comments that oppose this action, we will publish a
document in the Federal Register withdrawing this rule before it takes
effect and the separate document in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register will serve as the proposal to authorize the changes.
DATES: This extension of the interim authorization will become
effective on January 17, 2006 and remain in effect until January 1,
2011 unless EPA receives adverse written comment by December 19, 2005.
If EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of
this immediate final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that this extended authorization will not take immediate effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail: Robin Biscaia, biscaia.robin@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit (CHW), EPA New
England, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CHW), Boston, MA 02114-2023;
4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Robin
Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit, EPA New England, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100 (CHW), Boston, MA 02114-2023;
Instructions: We must receive your comments by December 19, 2005.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through regulations.gov, or e-mail. The Federal
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Dockets containing copies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts'
revision application, the materials which the EPA used in evaluating
the revision, and materials relating to the State-specific and site-
specific Federal regulation changes, have been established at the
following two locations: (i) Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, Business Compliance Division, One Winter Street--8th Floor,
Boston, MA 02108, business hours Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5
p.m., tel: (617) 556-1096; and (ii) EPA Region I Library, One
[[Page 69901]]
Congress Street--11th Floor, Boston, MA 02114-2023, business hours
Monday through Thursday 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., tel: (617) 918-1990. Records
in these dockets are available for inspection and copying during normal
business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Biscaia, Hazardous Waste Unit,
Office of Ecosystems Protection, EPA New England, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100 (CHW), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone: (617) 918-1642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?
Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq., states which have been authorized to administer the
Federal hazardous waste program under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C.
6926(b), have a continuing obligation to update their programs to meet
revised Federal requirements. 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 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. For example, States
must revise their programs to regulate the additional wastes determined
to be hazardous as a result of using the Toxicity Characteristics
Leaching Procedure (``TCLP'') test adopted by the EPA on March 29,
1990, in the TC Rule 55 FR 11798. The EPA may grant final authorization
to a State revision if it is equivalent to, consistent with, and no
less stringent than Federal RCRA requirements.
In the alternative, as provided by RCRA section 3006(g), 42 U.S.C.
6926(g), for updated Federal requirements promulgated pursuant to the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), such as the TC
Rule, the EPA may grant interim (i.e., temporary) authorization to a
State revision so long as it is substantially equivalent to Federal
RCRA requirements.
B. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule?
1. Background
The TC Rule grants authority over wastes which first became
classified as hazardous as a result of using the ``TCLP'' test, such as
many CRTs. See 55 FR 11798, 11847-11849 (March 29, 1990). CRTs are the
glass picture tubes found inside television and computer monitors.
Because of their high lead content, CRTs generally fail the TCLP test.
Thus, under the EPA's current regulations, CRTs generally become
hazardous wastes when they are discarded (e.g., when sent for disposal
or reclamation rather than being reused). However, the EPA has
recognized that certain widely generated wastes may pose lower risks
during accumulation and transport than other hazardous wastes. Thus the
EPA has listed certain wastes as Universal Wastes which are subject to
reduced regulation and has allowed authorized States to add other
appropriate wastes as Universal Wastes. See 40 CFR part 273.
On August 4, 2000, Massachusetts adopted regulations which revised
its regulatory program as it relates to CRTs. The State adopted a
three-part approach: (1) Intact CRTs being disposed are subject to full
hazardous waste requirements (along with crushed or ground up CRTs);
(2) intact CRTs that may still be reused (without reclamation)
generally are considered commodities exempt from hazardous waste
requirements; and, finally, (3) intact CRTs which will not be reused,
but which instead will be crushed and recycled (i.e., as spent
materials being reclaimed), are subject to reduced requirements which
track some but not all of the EPA's Universal Waste Rule requirements.
As explained in the Federal Register on November 15, 2000, 65 FR 68915,
and further explained in a legal memorandum contained in the
Administrative Record, dated January 21, 2000 entitled ``Massachusetts'
Regulation of CRTs,'' the EPA determined that the State program was
``substantially equivalent'' to Federal RCRA requirements. Therefore,
the EPA granted Massachusetts interim authorization to regulate CRTs
under the TC Rule. The State program was determined to be only
``substantially'' rather than fully equivalent to the federal RCRA
program because the maximum flexibility allowed under the federal
program was to regulate hazardous CRTs being reclaimed as a Universal
Waste, whereas Massachusetts regulates intact CRTs heading to
reclamation less stringently in certain respects than does the
Universal Waste Rule.
2. Today's Decision
There have been no changes in either the Federal or Massachusetts
regulations applicable to CRTs since November 15, 2000. Therefore, the
State program remains substantially equivalent (but not fully
equivalent) to current Federal RCRA requirements, for the reasons
previously stated. Absent further EPA action, the authority to regulate
the CRTs would revert to the EPA as of January 1, 2006, and full
hazardous waste regulations would become applicable to many CRTs in
Massachusetts.
Like Massachusetts, the EPA has recognized that regulating intact
CRTs as a fully regulated hazardous waste can discourage recycling of
the CRTs and, thus, be counter-productive. Therefore, it is
environmentally important not to allow the interim authorization of the
Massachusetts regulations to expire.
On June 12, 2002, the EPA proposed to adopt regulations to reduce
RCRA regulatory requirements for CRTs. See 67 FR 40508. If the proposed
rule is adopted, intact CRTs heading for reclamation will no longer be
classified as solid or hazardous wastes. Thus, they will no longer need
to be handled in accordance with either full hazardous waste or
Universal Waste Rule requirements. Therefore, if and when the proposed
rule is adopted, the Massachusetts CRT program will no longer be less
stringent than the federal program. It will be equivalent to the
federal program in exempting commodity CRTs from regulations while
fully regulating CRTs being disposed, and will be more stringent than
the federal program in partially regulating intact CRTs being reclaimed
and in fully regulating crushed or ground up CRTs even when they are
recycled. However, the final EPA CRT rule is not expected to be issued
until after January 1, 2006.
The general deadline for the expiration of interim authorization
for HSWA regulations set in 40 CFR 271.24 is January 1, 2003. The EPA
believes that extension of the interim authorization of the
Massachusetts CRT program beyond the generally applicable deadline of
January 1, 2003 is appropriate in the unusual circumstances presented.
An extension to January 1, 2011 will enable the Massachusetts program
to continue to operate pending the EPA's final decision on its own CRT
Rule. This should give the EPA sufficient time to finalize its own CRT
Rule. If the final EPA CRT Rule is the same as the proposed rule or
otherwise remains at least as flexible as the Massachusetts CRT Rule,
then the EPA should be able to later grant final authorization to the
Massachusetts CRT Rule, as soon as the EPA CRT Rule is adopted. If the
final EPA CRT Rule is more stringent than the Massachusetts CRT Rule,
the EPA
[[Page 69902]]
and State can address the resulting situation at that time.
C. What Is the Effect of Today's Authorization Decision?
The effect of this decision is that for CRTs regulated under the TC
Rule, a facility in Massachusetts subject to RCRA will have to continue
to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the Federal
requirements in order to comply with RCRA. The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts has enforcement responsibilities under its State
hazardous and solid waste programs for violations of such programs, 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 interim
authorization to Massachusetts is being extended by today's action are
already in effect under state law, and are not changed by today's
action.
D. Why Wasn't There a Proposed Rule Before Today's Rule?
EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view
this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose
this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now.
In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's
Federal Register we are publishing a separate document that proposes to
authorize the State program changes.
E. What Happens if EPA Receives Comments That Oppose This Action?
If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will
withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register
before the rule becomes effective. EPA will base any further decision
on the authorization of the State program changes on the proposal
mentioned in the previous paragraph. We will then address all public
comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to
comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so
at this time.
F. 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. EPA granted authorization for
changes to their program on September 30, 1998, effective November 30,
1998 (63 FR 52180), October 12, 1999, effective that date (64 FR 55153)
and March 12, 2004, effective that date (69 FR 11801), in addition to
the previously discussed November 15, 2000 interim authorization of the
Massachusetts CRT Rule (65 FR 68915) and the extension EPA granted to
that rule on October 31, 2002, effective January 1, 2003 (67 FR 66338).
G. What Changes Are We Authorizing in Today's Action?
The Massachusetts regulations authorized by today's action are the
same as those listed in the chart set forth in the Federal Register
document dated November 15, 2000 (65 FR 68915, 68918). Today's action
simply extends the interim authorization previously granted from
January 1, 2006 to January 1, 2011.
H. Where Are the Revised State Rules Different From the Federal Rules?
The differences between the State and Federal regulations with
respect to CRTs are discussed in the November 15, 2000 Federal Register
document. Notwithstanding these differences, the EPA believes that the
State regulations are substantially equivalent to the Federal
regulations and, thus, the State continues to qualify to have interim
authorization. During the interim authorization period, for CRTs
regulated under the TC Rule, these state regulations will operate in
lieu of the Federal hazardous waste regulations.
I. 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.
J. How Does Today's Action Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 115) in
Massachusetts?
Massachusetts is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste
program in Indian country within the State (land of the Wampanoag
tribe). Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian country. EPA
will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program in these
lands.
K. 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.
L. Administrative Requirements
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This
action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
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). For the same reason, this
action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities
of Tribal governments, as specified by 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 rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That
[[Page 69903]]
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.
Under RCRA 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 note) 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 rule 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). This
action, nevertheless, will be effective 60 (sixty) days after
publication pursuant to the procedures governing immediate final rules.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian 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: November 9, 2005.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 05-22891 Filed 11-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P