California: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision, 60398-60403 [2010-24001]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
60398
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Departments, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the
Combatant Commands, the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of
Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD
Field Activities, and all other
organizational entities in the
Department of Defense (hereafter
referred to collectively as the ‘‘DoD
Components’’).
*
*
*
*
*
4. Section 285.3 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Dated: September 24, 2010.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
§ 285.3
California: Proposed Authorization of
State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision
Policy.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) Promote transparency and
accountability by adopting a
presumption in favor of disclosure in all
decisions involving the FOIA and
responding promptly to requests in a
spirit of cooperation.
*
*
*
*
*
5. Section 285.4 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1), the first
sentence of paragraph (a)(3), paragraph
(a)(4), and paragraph (e)(7).
b. Adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (e)(5).
The revisions and amendments read
as follows:
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
§ 285.4
Responsibilities.
(a) * * *
(1) Serve as the DoD Chief FOIA
Officer in accordance with Section 552
of title 5, United States Code.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Designate the FOIA Public
Liaisons for the Department of Defense
in accordance with Section 552 of title
5, United States Code. * * *
(4) Prepare and submit to the Attorney
General the DoD Annual Freedom of
Information Act Report as required by 5
U.S.C., and other reports as required by
E.O. 13392 and Attorney General
Memorandum, ‘‘The Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA),’’ March 19,
2009.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(5) * * * Additionally, DoD
Component FOIA offices will provide
DFOIPO with information copies of
significant FOIA requests and
responses.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) Submit to the DA&M, through
DFOIPO, DoD Component inputs to the
DoD FOIA Annual Report prescribed in
32 CFR part 286 and E.O. 13392 and
other reports or data requested by the
DA&M. All such submissions will be
made by the FOIA Public Liaisons.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Sep 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
[FR Doc. 2010–24537 Filed 9–29–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA–R09–RCRA–2010–0598; FRL–9205–1]
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
California has applied to EPA
for final authorization of certain changes
to its hazardous waste program under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has
reviewed California’s application and
made the tentative decision that these
changes satisfy all requirements needed
to qualify for final authorization, and is
proposing to authorize the State’s
changes. EPA is also proposing that the
State’s requirements regulating facilities
that are conditionally exempt from the
federal rules as Conditionally Exempt
Small Quantity Generators (‘‘CESQGs’’)
be treated as more stringent than federal
requirements, thereby making these
provisions federally enforceable.
DATES: EPA must receive written
comments on California’s application
for authorization for changes to its
hazardous waste management program
by November 1, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
RCRA–2010–0598 by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: smith.rebecca@epa.gov.
• Fax: (415) 947–3533 (prior to
faxing, please notify Rebecca Smith at
415–972–3313)
• Mail: Send written comments to:
Rebecca Smith, WST–2, EPA Region 9,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105–3901.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Rebecca
Smith, EPA Region 9 (WST–2), 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the office’s normal
hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Instructions: We must receive your
comments by November 1, 2010. Direct
your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–
R09–RCRA–2010–0598. EPA’s policy is
that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information the disclosure of which is
restricted by statute, or you make
special arrangements with the EPA
contact. Do not submit information that
you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.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 https://
www.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 you do
so, this information will become a part
of the public record, unless you have
made arrangements with EPA prior to
the submittal of your comments. 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. (For additional information
about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy.
You may view and copy California’s
application at the following addresses:
California Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Services Center,
1001 I Street, 22nd Floor, Sacramento,
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
CA 95814, Phone: (916) 324–0912, from
8 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Thursday
(appointment preferred but not
required); and U.S. EPA Region 9
Library-Information Center, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Phone: (415) 947–4406, from 9
a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Monday through Thursday. Copy
services are not available in Sacramento,
but should be arranged by the viewer.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rebecca Smith, EPA Region 9 (WST–2),
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Phone: (415) 972–3313. E-mail:
smith.rebecca@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Why are revisions to state programs
necessary?
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
States which have received final
authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must
maintain a hazardous waste program
that 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
change 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 decisions have we made in this
rule?
EPA has made the tentative
determination that California’s
application to revise its authorized
program meets all of the statutory and
regulatory requirements established by
RCRA. Therefore, we are proposing to
grant California final authorization to
operate its hazardous waste program
with the changes described in this
authorization application. California
will have responsibility for permitting
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) within its borders
(except in Indian country) and for
carrying out all authorized aspects of
the RCRA program described in its
revised program application, subject to
the limitations of RCRA’s Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA). New Federal requirements and
prohibitions imposed by HSWA
regulations take effect as a matter of
Federal law in authorized states before
those states are authorized for such
requirements. Thus, EPA will
implement those requirements and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Sep 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
60399
F. What changes are we proposing with
this action?
On August 2, 2004 and August 17,
2004 California submitted final
C. What is the effect of this
complete program revision applications,
authorization decision?
seeking authorization of those changes
If California is authorized for these
in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We
changes, a facility in California subject
have made a tentative determination
to RCRA will have to comply with the
that California’s hazardous waste
authorized State requirements instead of
program revisions satisfy all of the
the corresponding Federal requirements
requirements necessary to qualify for
in order to comply with RCRA.
final authorization.
Additionally, facilities must comply
California has applied for only the
with certain Federal requirements, i.e.,
Federal changes relating to the
HSWA regulations issued by EPA for
corrective action management units, the
which California has not received
Bevill exclusion and the land disposal
authorization, and RCRA requirements
restrictions. There are several changes to
that are not supplanted by authorized
the Federal program for which
State-issued requirements such as
California has not yet applied for
requirements for the exportation of
authorization. The major areas of
hazardous waste. California continues to
changes for which California has not yet
have enforcement responsibilities under
applied for authorization are: The used
its State law to pursue violations of its
oil regulations; consolidated liability
hazardous waste management program.
requirements; military munitions;
EPA continues to have independent
universal waste; modification to the
enforcement authority under RCRA
hazardous waste manifest system;
sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003,
standardized permit requirements;
which include, among others, the
burden reduction regulations; and the
authority to:
NESHAPS: Final Standards for
• Do inspections, and require
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous
monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;
Waste Combustors (MACT Rule).
• Enforce RCRA requirements
California submits packages to EPA
(including State-issued statutes and
relating to its efforts to seek
regulations that are authorized by EPA
authorization for updates to its program
and any applicable Federally-issued
statutes and regulations) and suspend or based on revisions to the Federal
program. EPA publishes a series of
revoke permits; and
• Take enforcement actions regardless checklists to aid California and the other
states in such efforts (see EPA’s RCRA
of whether the State has taken its own
State Authorization Web page at
actions.
https://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
The action to approve these revisions
hazwaste/state/revision/program.htm).
would not impose additional
Each checklist generally reflects changes
requirements on the regulated
made to the Federal regulations
community because the regulations for
pursuant to a particular Federal
which California will be authorized are
Register notice. California’s submittals
already effective under State law and
have been grouped into general
are not changed by the act of
categories (e.g., Corrective Action
authorization.
Management Units, Land Disposal
D. What happens if EPA receives
Restrictions, etc.). Each submittal may
comments that oppose this action?
have reflected changes based on one or
If EPA receives comments that oppose more Federal Register notices and
this authorization, we will address those would have thus referenced one or more
comments in a later final rule. You may corresponding checklists.
What follows is a summary, for each
not have another opportunity to
general category identified by California
comment. If you want to comment on
in its submittals, of the specific subjects
this authorization, you must do so at
of changes to the Federal program for
this time.
that category. Although the changes to
E. For what has California previously
the Federal program are identified in the
been authorized?
summary, California did not necessarily
make revisions to its program as a result
California initially received final
of each Federal revision noted. For
authorization for the base RCRA
example, certain revisions to the Federal
program on July 23, 1992, effective
program may have resulted in less
August 1, 1992 (57 FR 32726). EPA
stringent regulation than that which
granted authorization for changes to
previously existed. Since states may
California’s program on September 26,
maintain programs which are more
2001, effective September 26, 2001 (66
stringent than the Federal program,
FR 49118).
prohibitions in California, including
issuing permits, until the State is
granted authorization to do so.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
60400
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
states have the option whether or not to
adopt such revisions.
1. Changes California Identified as
Relating to Corrective Action
Management Units
We are proposing to grant California
final authorization for all revisions to its
program due to certain changes to the
Federal Corrective Action Management
Unit program.
2. Changes California Identified as
Relating to Land Disposal Restrictions
Phases 3 and 4
We are proposing to grant California
final authorization for all revisions, if
any, to its program due to certain
changes to the Federal program in the
following areas: (1) Land Disposal
Restrictions Phase III—Decharacterized
Wastewaters; (2) Emergency Extension
of the K088 Capacity Variance; (3) Land
Disposal Restrictions Phase IV—
Treatment Standards for Wood
Preserving Wastes, Paperwork
Reduction and Streamlining,
Exemptions From RCRA for Certain
Processed Materials; (4) Emergency
Revision of the Carbamate Land
Disposal Restrictions; (5) Clarification of
Standards for Hazardous Waste LDR
Treatment Variances; (6) Treatment
Standards for Metal Wastes and Mineral
Processing Wastes; (7) Hazardous Soils
Treatment Standards and Exclusions; (8)
Administrative Stay for Zinc
Micronutrient Fertilizers; (9) Emergency
Revision of the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) Treatment Standards
for Listed Hazardous Wastes from
Carbamate Production; (10) Extension of
Compliance Date for Characteristic
Slags; (11) Treatment Standards for
Spent Potliners from Primary
Aluminum Reduction (K088); (12)
Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing and LDRs
for Newly Identified Wastes; (13)
Deferral for PCBs in Soil; and (14)
Certain Land Disposal Restrictions
Technical Corrections and
Clarifications. Note that California has
not yet adopted the provisions
addressed by the following Federal final
rules which are also part of Phase IV of
the land disposal restrictions
requirements: LDR Revision Checklist
195 (66 FR 58258, November 20, 2001,
as amended by 67 FR 17119, April 9,
2002); non-LDR Revision Checklist 200
(67 FR 28393, July 24, 2002); and LDR
Revision Checklist 201 (67 FR 62618,
October 7, 2002).
3. Changes California Identified as
Relating to the Bevill Exclusion
We are proposing to grant California
final authorization for all revisions to its
program due to certain changes to the
Federal program in the Bevill Exclusion
requirements.
The following table shows the Federal
and analogous State provisions involved
in this tentative decision and the
relevant corresponding checklists:
Description of Federal requirement (checklist #)
Federal Register page and date
Analogous State authority
40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR),
260.10 Corrective Action Management Units
(CAMU), checklist 196.
40 CFR 261.1 Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDR), checklist 157.
40 CFR 261.2 LDR, checklists 157, 179 ...........
(196) 67 FR 2962, Jan. 22, 2002 ....................
(179) 64 FR 2548, May 11, 1999 ....................
40 CFR 261.3, Bevill Exclusion, checklist 167E
40 CFR 261.4, Bevill Exclusion, checklist 167E
(167E) 63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998 ................
..........................................................................
40 CFR 262.34 LDR, checklists 179, 183 .........
(183) 64 FR 56469, October 20, 1999 ............
40 CFR 264.550 through 264.552 CAMU,
checklist 196.
40 CFR 264.554 and 264.555 CAMU, checklist
196.
40 CFR 268.1 LDR, checklists 151, 157 ...........
..........................................................................
(196) Title 22, California code of Regulations
(22 CCR) 66260.10, amended July 19,
2004.
(157) California did not adopt these exclusions.
(157, 179) California did not adopt these regulations.
(167E) 66261.3, amended March 15, 2003.
(167E) 66261.4, amended November 12,
1998.
(179, 183) 22 CCR 66262.34, amended Sept.
11, 2000.
(196) 22 CCR 66264.550 through 66264.552,
amended July 19, 2004.
(196) California did not adopt these regulations.
(151, 157) 22 CCR 66268.1, amended June
4, 1999
40 CFR 268.2 LDR, checklists 151, 167A,
167B, 179.
40 CFR 268.3(b) LDR checklist 151 ..................
40 CFR 268.3(c) and (d) LDR checklists 151,
167A.
40 CFR 268.4 LDR checklist 167C ....................
(157) 62 FR 25998, May 12, 1997 ..................
..........................................................................
(151) 61 FR 15566 April 8, 1996; [amended
61 FR 15660 April 8, 1996; 61 FR 19117
April 30, 1996; 61 FR 33680 June 28,
1996; 61 FR 36419 July 10, 1996; 61 FR
43924 August 26, 1996; and 62 FR 7502
February 19, 1997].
(167A, 167B) 63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998
[amended 63 FR 31266 June 8, 1998].
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
(167C) 63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998 [amended 63 FR 31266, June 8, 1998].
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
40 CFR 268.7 LDR, checklists 151, 157, 167B,
167C, 179, 183.
..........................................................................
40 CFR 268.9 LDR checklists 151, 157, 179 ....
..........................................................................
40 CFR 268.30 LDR checklist 157 ....................
..........................................................................
40 CFR 268.32 LDR checklists 157, 190 ..........
(190) 65 FR 81373 December 26, 2000 .........
40 CFR 268.33 LDR checklist 189 ....................
(189) 65 FR 67068, November 8, 2000 ..........
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Sep 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(151, 167A, 167B, 179) 22 CCR 66260.10,
amended Feb. 26, 2004.
(151) California Health and Safety Code
(HSC) Division 20, 25179.2(e) enacted
1995. California did not adopt the dilution
exception.
(151, 167A) 22 CCR 66268.3(b) and (c)
amended June 4, 1999
(167C) HSC, Division 20, 25179.11 amended
1996. 22 CCR 66268.1 amended June 4,
1999.
(151, 157, 167B, 167C, 179, 183) 22 CCR
66268.7 amended Feb. 26, 2004; (157)
California did not adopt the Federal exemption at 40 CFR 268.7(b)(6).
(151, 157, 179) 22 CCR 66268.9 amended
Feb. 26, 2004.
(157) 22 CCR 66268.30 amended June 4,
1999.
(157, 190) 22 CCR 66268.31.5 amended July
3, 2002.
(189) 22 CCR 66268.33 amended July 3,
2002.
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
60401
Description of Federal requirement (checklist #)
Federal Register page and date
Analogous State authority
40 CFR 268.34 LDR checklists 167A, 172 ........
(167A, 172) 63 FR 48124, September 9, 1998
40 CFR 268.39 LDR checklists 151, 155, 159,
160, 173.
(155) 62 FR 1992, January 14, 1997; (160)
62 FR 37694, July 14, 1997; (173) 63 FR
51254, September 24, 1998.
(161) 62 FR 45568, August 28, 1997; (170)
63 FR 46332 August 31, 1998; (171) 63 FR
47410, September 4, 1998.
..........................................................................
(167A, 172) 22 CCR 66268.34 amended
Sept. 11, 2000.
(151, 155, 159, 160, 173) 22 CCR 66268.39
amended Sept. 11, 2000.
40 CFR 268.40 LDR checklists 151, 161, 167A,
167C, 171, 179, 183.
40 CFR 268.40/Table checklists 151, 157,
167A, 167C, 171, 173 179, 183, 189.
40 CFR 268.42 LDR checklists 151, 157, 167C
..........................................................................
40 CFR 268.44(a) LDR checklist 162 ................
(162) 62 FR 64504, December 5, 1997 ..........
40 CFR 268.44(h), (m) LDR checklists 162,
167B.
40 CFR 268.45 LDR checklist 167C ..................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
40 CFR 268.48(a)/Table UTS LDR checklists
151, 161, 167A, 167C, 171, 179, 189, 190.
..........................................................................
40 CFR 268.49 LDR checklists 167B, 183, 179,
190.
40 CFR 268, Appendices I, II, X LDR checklist
157.
40 CFR 268, Appendix III LDR checklists 157,
190.
40 CFR 268, Appendix VI LDR checklist 157 ....
..........................................................................
40 CFR 268, Appendix VII/Table 1 LDR checklists 157, 167C, 192B.
40 CFR 268, Appendix VII/Table 2 and Appendix VIII LDR checklists 157, 167C.
40 CFR 268, Appendix XI LDR checklist 151 ....
(192B) 66 FR 27266, May 16, 2001 ................
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
G. Where are the revised state rules
different from the federal rules?
State requirements that go beyond the
scope of the Federal program are not
part of the authorized program and EPA
cannot enforce them. Although you
must comply with these requirements in
accordance with California law, they are
not RCRA requirements. We consider
that the following State requirements,
which pertain to the revisions involved
in this tentative decision, go beyond the
scope of the Federal program.
1. The definition of ‘‘remediation
waste’’ at 22 CCR. 66260.10 is broader in
scope than the Federal definition at 40
CFR 260.10 only to the extent
California’s definition includes
hazardous substances which are neither
‘‘hazardous wastes’’ nor ‘‘‘solid wastes.’’
2. California regulation subjects
CAMUs for non-RCRA hazardous waste
to state-specific requirements under 22
CCR 66264.552.5. The state requirement
at 22 CCR 66264.552.5 is broader in
scope because the federal program does
not consider these wastes to be
hazardous. In addition, 22 CCR
66264.550(a) is also considered broader
in scope to the extent that it subjects
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Sep 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
non-RCRA wastes to the state-only
CAMU requirements.
3. California did not adopt the Federal
definitions at 40 CFR 261.1(c)(9)–(12),
261.4(a)(13)–(14), and 261.6(a)(3)(ii)
addressing scrap metals or the related
Federal changes to 40 CFR 261.2(c)(4)/
Table. California is broader in scope to
the extent that its statutory provisions at
HS&C § 25143.2(a) and (e), do not
exclude these scrap metals from
regulation.
4. The California provisions at 22 CCR
66268.7(a)-(c) are broader in scope than
the Federal land disposal treatment
provisions at 40 CFR 268.7(a)-(c) to the
extent that the State’s provisions also
apply to non-RCRA wastes. Similarly,
California’s variance petition provisions
at 22 CCR 66268.44(c) and 66268.44(h)
are also broader in scope to the extent
that they apply to non-RCRA wastes.
H. What is EPA’s position on
California’s regulation of conditionally
exempt small quantity generators?
When California initially received
final authorization for the base RCRA
program on July 23, 1992, effective
August 1, 1992 (57 FR 32726), EPA
Pacific Southwest Region (Region IX)
identified California’s failure to adopt
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(151, 161, 167A, 167C, 171, 179, 183) 22
CCR 66268.40 amended July 3, 2002.
(151, 157, 167A, 167C, 171, 173 179, 183,
189) 22 CCR 66268.40/Table amended
July 3, 2002.
(151, 157, 167C) 22 CCR 66268.42 amended
Feb. 26, 2004.
(162) California is not seeking to have this
provision delegated.
(162, 167B) 22 CCR 66268.44 amended June
4, 1999.
(167C) 22 CCR 66268.45 amended June 4,
1999.
(151, 161, 167A, 167C, 171, 179, 189, 190)
22 CCR 66268.48(a)/Table UTS amended
July 3, 2002.
(167B, 183, 179, 190) 22 CCR 66268.49
amended July 3, 2002.
(157) 22 CCR, Chapter 18, Appendices I, II, X
[reserved] amended June 4, 1999.
(157, 190) 22 CCR Chapter 18, Appendices
III amended July 3, 2002.
(157) 22 CCR Chapter 18, Appendices VI
amended June 4, 1999.
(157, 167C, 192B) 22 CCR Chapter 18, Appendix VII/Table 1 amended July 3, 2002.
(157, 167C) 22 CCR Chapter 18, Appendix
VII/Table 2 amended June 4, 1999.
(151) 22 CCR Chapter 18, Appendix XI
amended June 4, 1999.
the federal exclusion for conditionally
exempt small quantity generators
(‘‘CESQGs’’) (found, generally, at 40 CFR
261.5) as ‘‘broader in scope’’ than the
federal program. (See also 40 CFR
270.1(c)(2)(iii).) However, EPA’s
position regarding the absence of the
conditional exclusion for CESQGs in a
state program has changed and EPA
now clearly regards the absence of any
such exclusion as more stringent than
the federal program, making state
regulation of CESQGs federally
enforceable when authorized. See
United States v. Southern Union Co.,
643 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D.R.I. 2009). In
order to harmonize our authorization of
California’s program with EPA’s
position with respect to CESQGs, EPA is
hereby proposing to redesignate
California’s regulation of CESQGs as
more stringent than the federal program.
EPA is also seeking public comment on
this proposed change to California’s
authorization. If EPA makes a final
determination that California’s
regulation of CESQGs is more stringent
than the federal program, then the
State’s regulation of such federally
exempt CESQGs will be part of the
authorized state program and will be
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
60402
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
federally enforceable within the State of
California. Specifically, this change will
allow federal enforcement of State
requirements applicable to CESQGs who
are conditionally exempt under the
federal provisions found at 40 CFR
261.5, 266.100(b)(3) and 270.1(c)(2)(iii).
This change will not result in any new
requirements on CESQGs, but will only
mean that the more stringent State
requirements for CESQGs will be
federally enforceable.
I. Who handles permits after the
authorization takes effect?
California will issue permits for all
the provisions for which it is authorized
and will administer the permits it
issues. All permits issued by EPA prior
to California being authorized for these
revisions, if any, will continue in force
until the effective date of the State’s
issuance or denial of a State RCRA
permit, or the permit otherwise expires
or is revoked. California will administer
any RCRA hazardous waste permits or
portions of permits which EPA issued
prior to the effective date of this
authorization until such time as
California has issued a corresponding
State permit. EPA will not issue any
more new permits or new portions of
permits for provisions for which
California is authorized after the
effective date of this authorization. EPA
will retain responsibility to issue
permits needed for HSWA requirements
for which California is not yet
authorized.
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
J. How would authorizing California for
these revisions affect Indian country
(18 U.S.C. Section 1151) in California?
California is not authorized to carry
out its hazardous waste program in
Indian country within the State. Indian
country includes all lands within the
exterior boundaries of an Indian
reservation, any land held in trust by
the United States for an Indian tribe
whether or not formally designated as
an Indian reservation, and any other
land, whether within or outside of an
Indian reservation, that qualifies as
Indian country under 18 U.S.C. 1151. A
list of Indian Tribes in California can be
found on the Web at https://
www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html
under Tribal Leaders Directory.
Therefore, this proposed action would
have no effect on the Indian country
within the State’s borders. EPA will
continue to implement and administer
the RCRA program in Indian country
within the State.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Sep 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
K. What is codification and is EPA
codifying California’s hazardous waste
management 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 management 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 F for this
authorization of California’s program
changes until a later date.
L. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This proposed rule only authorizes
hazardous waste requirements pursuant
to RCRA 3006 and imposes no
requirements other than those imposed
by State law. Therefore, this rule
complies with applicable executive
orders and statutory provisions as
follows:
1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning Review
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this proposed rule from
its review under Executive Order (EO)
12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
and therefore this action is not subject
to review by OMB.
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose
an information collection burden under
the Paperwork Reduction Act.
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act
After considering the economic
impacts of this proposed rule on small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, I certify that this proposed rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this proposed rule approves
preexisting 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.
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
EO 13132 does not apply to this
proposed rule because it will not have
federalism implications (i.e., substantial
direct effects on the State, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
responsibilities among the various
levels of government) as described in
EO 13132.
6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
EO13175 does not apply to this
proposed rule because it will not have
tribal implications (i.e., substantial
direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes). As
stated previously, this proposed action
would have no effect on the Indian
country within the State’s borders and
EPA will continue to implement and
administer the RCRA program in Indian
country within the State.
7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health &
Safety Risks
This proposed rule is not subject to
EO 13045 because it is not economically
significant and it is not based on health
or safety risks.
8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to
EO 13211 because it is not a significant
regulatory action as defined in EO
12866.
9. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
EPA approves State programs as long
as they meet criteria required by RCRA,
so it would be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA, in its review of
a State program, to require the use of
any particular voluntary consensus
standard in place of another standard
that meets the requirements of RCRA.
Thus, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advance Act
does not apply to this proposed rule.
10. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low
Income Populations
Because this rule addresses
authorizing pre-existing State rules and
imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law and
there are no anticipated significant
adverse human health or environmental
effects, the rule is not subject to
Executive Order 12898.
11. Executive Order 12988
As required by section 3 of Executive
Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7,
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules
1996), in issuing this proposed 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.
implications of the proposed 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.
12. Executive Order 12630: Evaluation
of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
EPA has complied with Executive
Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15,
1988) by examining the takings
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Sep 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indians—lands,
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
60403
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: This notice 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: September 13, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2010–24001 Filed 9–29–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM
30SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60398-60403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24001]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA-R09-RCRA-2010-0598; FRL-9205-1]
California: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: California has applied to EPA for final authorization of
certain changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed California's
application and made the tentative decision that these changes satisfy
all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is
proposing to authorize the State's changes. EPA is also proposing that
the State's requirements regulating facilities that are conditionally
exempt from the federal rules as Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generators (``CESQGs'') be treated as more stringent than federal
requirements, thereby making these provisions federally enforceable.
DATES: EPA must receive written comments on California's application
for authorization for changes to its hazardous waste management program
by November 1, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
RCRA-2010-0598 by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: smith.rebecca@epa.gov.
Fax: (415) 947-3533 (prior to faxing, please notify
Rebecca Smith at 415-972-3313)
Mail: Send written comments to: Rebecca Smith, WST-2, EPA
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Rebecca Smith, EPA Region 9
(WST-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the office's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: We must receive your comments by November 1, 2010.
Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-RCRA-2010-0598. EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be made available online at https://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is
restricted by statute, or you make special arrangements with the EPA
contact. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.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 https://www.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 you do so, this information will become a part of the public
record, unless you have made arrangements with EPA prior to the
submittal of your comments. 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. (For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy.
You may view and copy California's application at the following
addresses: California Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Services Center, 1001 I Street, 22nd Floor, Sacramento,
[[Page 60399]]
CA 95814, Phone: (916) 324-0912, from 8 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Thursday (appointment preferred but not required);
and U.S. EPA Region 9 Library-Information Center, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: (415) 947-4406, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Copy services are not
available in Sacramento, but should be arranged by the viewer.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Smith, EPA Region 9 (WST-2),
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: (415) 972-3313. E-
mail: smith.rebecca@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?
States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that 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 change 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 decisions have we made in this rule?
EPA has made the tentative determination that California's
application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory
and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we are
proposing to grant California final authorization to operate its
hazardous waste program with the changes described in this
authorization application. California will have responsibility for
permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) within
its borders (except in Indian country) and for carrying out all
authorized aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program
application, subject to the limitations of RCRA's Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and
prohibitions imposed by HSWA regulations take effect as a matter of
Federal law in authorized states before those states are authorized for
such requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and
prohibitions in California, including issuing permits, until the State
is granted authorization to do so.
C. What is the effect of this authorization decision?
If California is authorized for these changes, a facility in
California subject to RCRA will have to comply with the authorized
State requirements instead of the corresponding Federal requirements in
order to comply with RCRA. Additionally, facilities must comply with
certain Federal requirements, i.e., HSWA regulations issued by EPA for
which California has not received authorization, and RCRA requirements
that are not supplanted by authorized State-issued requirements such as
requirements for the exportation of hazardous waste. California
continues to have enforcement responsibilities under its State law to
pursue violations of its hazardous waste management program. EPA
continues to have independent enforcement authority under RCRA sections
3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, the authority
to:
Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or
reports;
Enforce RCRA requirements (including State-issued statutes
and regulations that are authorized by EPA and any applicable
Federally-issued statutes and regulations) and suspend or revoke
permits; and
Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State
has taken its own actions.
The action to approve these revisions would not impose additional
requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for
which California will be authorized are already effective under State
law and are not changed by the act of authorization.
D. What happens if EPA receives comments that oppose this action?
If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will
address those 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.
E. For what has California previously been authorized?
California initially received final authorization for the base RCRA
program on July 23, 1992, effective August 1, 1992 (57 FR 32726). EPA
granted authorization for changes to California's program on September
26, 2001, effective September 26, 2001 (66 FR 49118).
F. What changes are we proposing with this action?
On August 2, 2004 and August 17, 2004 California submitted final
complete program revision applications, seeking authorization of those
changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We have made a tentative
determination that California's hazardous waste program revisions
satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final
authorization.
California has applied for only the Federal changes relating to the
corrective action management units, the Bevill exclusion and the land
disposal restrictions. There are several changes to the Federal program
for which California has not yet applied for authorization. The major
areas of changes for which California has not yet applied for
authorization are: The used oil regulations; consolidated liability
requirements; military munitions; universal waste; modification to the
hazardous waste manifest system; standardized permit requirements;
burden reduction regulations; and the NESHAPS: Final Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors (MACT Rule).
California submits packages to EPA relating to its efforts to seek
authorization for updates to its program based on revisions to the
Federal program. EPA publishes a series of checklists to aid California
and the other states in such efforts (see EPA's RCRA State
Authorization Web page at https://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/state/revision/program.htm). Each checklist generally reflects changes made
to the Federal regulations pursuant to a particular Federal Register
notice. California's submittals have been grouped into general
categories (e.g., Corrective Action Management Units, Land Disposal
Restrictions, etc.). Each submittal may have reflected changes based on
one or more Federal Register notices and would have thus referenced one
or more corresponding checklists.
What follows is a summary, for each general category identified by
California in its submittals, of the specific subjects of changes to
the Federal program for that category. Although the changes to the
Federal program are identified in the summary, California did not
necessarily make revisions to its program as a result of each Federal
revision noted. For example, certain revisions to the Federal program
may have resulted in less stringent regulation than that which
previously existed. Since states may maintain programs which are more
stringent than the Federal program,
[[Page 60400]]
states have the option whether or not to adopt such revisions.
1. Changes California Identified as Relating to Corrective Action
Management Units
We are proposing to grant California final authorization for all
revisions to its program due to certain changes to the Federal
Corrective Action Management Unit program.
2. Changes California Identified as Relating to Land Disposal
Restrictions Phases 3 and 4
We are proposing to grant California final authorization for all
revisions, if any, to its program due to certain changes to the Federal
program in the following areas: (1) Land Disposal Restrictions Phase
III--Decharacterized Wastewaters; (2) Emergency Extension of the K088
Capacity Variance; (3) Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV--Treatment
Standards for Wood Preserving Wastes, Paperwork Reduction and
Streamlining, Exemptions From RCRA for Certain Processed Materials; (4)
Emergency Revision of the Carbamate Land Disposal Restrictions; (5)
Clarification of Standards for Hazardous Waste LDR Treatment Variances;
(6) Treatment Standards for Metal Wastes and Mineral Processing Wastes;
(7) Hazardous Soils Treatment Standards and Exclusions; (8)
Administrative Stay for Zinc Micronutrient Fertilizers; (9) Emergency
Revision of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Treatment Standards
for Listed Hazardous Wastes from Carbamate Production; (10) Extension
of Compliance Date for Characteristic Slags; (11) Treatment Standards
for Spent Potliners from Primary Aluminum Reduction (K088); (12)
Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing and LDRs for Newly Identified Wastes;
(13) Deferral for PCBs in Soil; and (14) Certain Land Disposal
Restrictions Technical Corrections and Clarifications. Note that
California has not yet adopted the provisions addressed by the
following Federal final rules which are also part of Phase IV of the
land disposal restrictions requirements: LDR Revision Checklist 195 (66
FR 58258, November 20, 2001, as amended by 67 FR 17119, April 9, 2002);
non-LDR Revision Checklist 200 (67 FR 28393, July 24, 2002); and LDR
Revision Checklist 201 (67 FR 62618, October 7, 2002).
3. Changes California Identified as Relating to the Bevill Exclusion
We are proposing to grant California final authorization for all
revisions to its program due to certain changes to the Federal program
in the Bevill Exclusion requirements.
The following table shows the Federal and analogous State
provisions involved in this tentative decision and the relevant
corresponding checklists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Federal
requirement (checklist Federal Register Analogous State
) page and date authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 Code of Federal (196) 67 FR 2962, (196) Title 22,
Regulations (40 CFR), Jan. 22, 2002. California code of
260.10 Corrective Action Regulations (22
Management Units (CAMU), CCR) 66260.10,
checklist 196. amended July 19,
2004.
40 CFR 261.1 Land Disposal (157) 62 FR 25998, (157) California did
Restrictions (LDR), May 12, 1997. not adopt these
checklist 157. exclusions.
40 CFR 261.2 LDR, checklists (179) 64 FR 2548, (157, 179)
157, 179. May 11, 1999. California did not
adopt these
regulations.
40 CFR 261.3, Bevill (167E) 63 FR 28556, (167E) 66261.3,
Exclusion, checklist 167E. May 26, 1998. amended March 15,
2003.
40 CFR 261.4, Bevill .................... (167E) 66261.4,
Exclusion, checklist 167E. amended November
12, 1998.
40 CFR 262.34 LDR, (183) 64 FR 56469, (179, 183) 22 CCR
checklists 179, 183. October 20, 1999. 66262.34, amended
Sept. 11, 2000.
40 CFR 264.550 through .................... (196) 22 CCR
264.552 CAMU, checklist 196. 66264.550 through
66264.552, amended
July 19, 2004.
40 CFR 264.554 and 264.555 .................... (196) California did
CAMU, checklist 196. not adopt these
regulations.
40 CFR 268.1 LDR, checklists (151) 61 FR 15566 (151, 157) 22 CCR
151, 157. April 8, 1996; 66268.1, amended
[amended 61 FR June 4, 1999
15660 April 8,
1996; 61 FR 19117
April 30, 1996; 61
FR 33680 June 28,
1996; 61 FR 36419
July 10, 1996; 61
FR 43924 August 26,
1996; and 62 FR
7502 February 19,
1997].
40 CFR 268.2 LDR, checklists (167A, 167B) 63 FR (151, 167A, 167B,
151, 167A, 167B, 179. 28556, May 26, 1998 179) 22 CCR
[amended 63 FR 66260.10, amended
31266 June 8, 1998]. Feb. 26, 2004.
40 CFR 268.3(b) LDR .................... (151) California
checklist 151. Health and Safety
Code (HSC) Division
20, 25179.2(e)
enacted 1995.
California did not
adopt the dilution
exception.
40 CFR 268.3(c) and (d) LDR .................... (151, 167A) 22 CCR
checklists 151, 167A. 66268.3(b) and (c)
amended June 4,
1999
40 CFR 268.4 LDR checklist (167C) 63 FR 28556, (167C) HSC, Division
167C. May 26, 1998 20, 25179.11
[amended 63 FR amended 1996. 22
31266, June 8, CCR 66268.1 amended
1998]. June 4, 1999.
40 CFR 268.7 LDR, checklists .................... (151, 157, 167B,
151, 157, 167B, 167C, 179, 167C, 179, 183) 22
183. CCR 66268.7 amended
Feb. 26, 2004;
(157) California
did not adopt the
Federal exemption
at 40 CFR
268.7(b)(6).
40 CFR 268.9 LDR checklists .................... (151, 157, 179) 22
151, 157, 179. CCR 66268.9 amended
Feb. 26, 2004.
40 CFR 268.30 LDR checklist .................... (157) 22 CCR
157. 66268.30 amended
June 4, 1999.
40 CFR 268.32 LDR checklists (190) 65 FR 81373 (157, 190) 22 CCR
157, 190. December 26, 2000. 66268.31.5 amended
July 3, 2002.
40 CFR 268.33 LDR checklist (189) 65 FR 67068, (189) 22 CCR
189. November 8, 2000. 66268.33 amended
July 3, 2002.
[[Page 60401]]
40 CFR 268.34 LDR checklists (167A, 172) 63 FR (167A, 172) 22 CCR
167A, 172. 48124, September 9, 66268.34 amended
1998. Sept. 11, 2000.
40 CFR 268.39 LDR checklists (155) 62 FR 1992, (151, 155, 159, 160,
151, 155, 159, 160, 173. January 14, 1997; 173) 22 CCR
(160) 62 FR 37694, 66268.39 amended
July 14, 1997; Sept. 11, 2000.
(173) 63 FR 51254,
September 24, 1998.
40 CFR 268.40 LDR checklists (161) 62 FR 45568, (151, 161, 167A,
151, 161, 167A, 167C, 171, August 28, 1997; 167C, 171, 179,
179, 183. (170) 63 FR 46332 183) 22 CCR
August 31, 1998; 66268.40 amended
(171) 63 FR 47410, July 3, 2002.
September 4, 1998.
40 CFR 268.40/Table .................... (151, 157, 167A,
checklists 151, 157, 167A, 167C, 171, 173 179,
167C, 171, 173 179, 183, 183, 189) 22 CCR
189. 66268.40/Table
amended July 3,
2002.
40 CFR 268.42 LDR checklists .................... (151, 157, 167C) 22
151, 157, 167C. CCR 66268.42
amended Feb. 26,
2004.
40 CFR 268.44(a) LDR (162) 62 FR 64504, (162) California is
checklist 162. December 5, 1997. not seeking to have
this provision
delegated.
40 CFR 268.44(h), (m) LDR .................... (162, 167B) 22 CCR
checklists 162, 167B. 66268.44 amended
June 4, 1999.
40 CFR 268.45 LDR checklist .................... (167C) 22 CCR
167C. 66268.45 amended
June 4, 1999.
40 CFR 268.48(a)/Table UTS .................... (151, 161, 167A,
LDR checklists 151, 161, 167C, 171, 179,
167A, 167C, 171, 179, 189, 189, 190) 22 CCR
190. 66268.48(a)/Table
UTS amended July 3,
2002.
40 CFR 268.49 LDR checklists .................... (167B, 183, 179,
167B, 183, 179, 190. 190) 22 CCR
66268.49 amended
July 3, 2002.
40 CFR 268, Appendices I, .................... (157) 22 CCR,
II, X LDR checklist 157. Chapter 18,
Appendices I, II, X
[reserved] amended
June 4, 1999.
40 CFR 268, Appendix III LDR .................... (157, 190) 22 CCR
checklists 157, 190. Chapter 18,
Appendices III
amended July 3,
2002.
40 CFR 268, Appendix VI LDR .................... (157) 22 CCR Chapter
checklist 157. 18, Appendices VI
amended June 4,
1999.
40 CFR 268, Appendix VII/ (192B) 66 FR 27266, (157, 167C, 192B) 22
Table 1 LDR checklists 157, May 16, 2001. CCR Chapter 18,
167C, 192B. Appendix VII/Table
1 amended July 3,
2002.
40 CFR 268, Appendix VII/ .................... (157, 167C) 22 CCR
Table 2 and Appendix VIII Chapter 18,
LDR checklists 157, 167C. Appendix VII/Table
2 amended June 4,
1999.
40 CFR 268, Appendix XI LDR .................... (151) 22 CCR Chapter
checklist 151. 18, Appendix XI
amended June 4,
1999.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Where are the revised state rules different from the federal rules?
State requirements that go beyond the scope of the Federal program
are not part of the authorized program and EPA cannot enforce them.
Although you must comply with these requirements in accordance with
California law, they are not RCRA requirements. We consider that the
following State requirements, which pertain to the revisions involved
in this tentative decision, go beyond the scope of the Federal program.
1. The definition of ``remediation waste'' at 22 CCR. 66260.10 is
broader in scope than the Federal definition at 40 CFR 260.10 only to
the extent California's definition includes hazardous substances which
are neither ``hazardous wastes'' nor ```solid wastes.''
2. California regulation subjects CAMUs for non-RCRA hazardous
waste to state-specific requirements under 22 CCR 66264.552.5. The
state requirement at 22 CCR 66264.552.5 is broader in scope because the
federal program does not consider these wastes to be hazardous. In
addition, 22 CCR 66264.550(a) is also considered broader in scope to
the extent that it subjects non-RCRA wastes to the state-only CAMU
requirements.
3. California did not adopt the Federal definitions at 40 CFR
261.1(c)(9)-(12), 261.4(a)(13)-(14), and 261.6(a)(3)(ii) addressing
scrap metals or the related Federal changes to 40 CFR 261.2(c)(4)/
Table. California is broader in scope to the extent that its statutory
provisions at HS&C Sec. 25143.2(a) and (e), do not exclude these scrap
metals from regulation.
4. The California provisions at 22 CCR 66268.7(a)-(c) are broader
in scope than the Federal land disposal treatment provisions at 40 CFR
268.7(a)-(c) to the extent that the State's provisions also apply to
non-RCRA wastes. Similarly, California's variance petition provisions
at 22 CCR 66268.44(c) and 66268.44(h) are also broader in scope to the
extent that they apply to non-RCRA wastes.
H. What is EPA's position on California's regulation of conditionally
exempt small quantity generators?
When California initially received final authorization for the base
RCRA program on July 23, 1992, effective August 1, 1992 (57 FR 32726),
EPA Pacific Southwest Region (Region IX) identified California's
failure to adopt the federal exclusion for conditionally exempt small
quantity generators (``CESQGs'') (found, generally, at 40 CFR 261.5) as
``broader in scope'' than the federal program. (See also 40 CFR
270.1(c)(2)(iii).) However, EPA's position regarding the absence of the
conditional exclusion for CESQGs in a state program has changed and EPA
now clearly regards the absence of any such exclusion as more stringent
than the federal program, making state regulation of CESQGs federally
enforceable when authorized. See United States v. Southern Union Co.,
643 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D.R.I. 2009). In order to harmonize our
authorization of California's program with EPA's position with respect
to CESQGs, EPA is hereby proposing to redesignate California's
regulation of CESQGs as more stringent than the federal program. EPA is
also seeking public comment on this proposed change to California's
authorization. If EPA makes a final determination that California's
regulation of CESQGs is more stringent than the federal program, then
the State's regulation of such federally exempt CESQGs will be part of
the authorized state program and will be
[[Page 60402]]
federally enforceable within the State of California. Specifically,
this change will allow federal enforcement of State requirements
applicable to CESQGs who are conditionally exempt under the federal
provisions found at 40 CFR 261.5, 266.100(b)(3) and 270.1(c)(2)(iii).
This change will not result in any new requirements on CESQGs, but will
only mean that the more stringent State requirements for CESQGs will be
federally enforceable.
I. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?
California will issue permits for all the provisions for which it
is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. All permits
issued by EPA prior to California being authorized for these revisions,
if any, will continue in force until the effective date of the State's
issuance or denial of a State RCRA permit, or the permit otherwise
expires or is revoked. California will administer any RCRA hazardous
waste permits or portions of permits which EPA issued prior to the
effective date of this authorization until such time as California has
issued a corresponding State permit. EPA will not issue any more new
permits or new portions of permits for provisions for which California
is authorized after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will
retain responsibility to issue permits needed for HSWA requirements for
which California is not yet authorized.
J. How would authorizing California for these revisions affect Indian
country (18 U.S.C. Section 1151) in California?
California is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste
program in Indian country within the State. Indian country includes all
lands within the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation, any land
held in trust by the United States for an Indian tribe whether or not
formally designated as an Indian reservation, and any other land,
whether within or outside of an Indian reservation, that qualifies as
Indian country under 18 U.S.C. 1151. A list of Indian Tribes in
California can be found on the Web at https://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html under Tribal Leaders Directory. Therefore, this proposed
action would have no effect on the Indian country within the State's
borders. EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program
in Indian country within the State.
K. What is codification and is EPA codifying California's hazardous
waste management 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
management 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 F for this authorization of
California's program changes until a later date.
L. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This proposed rule only authorizes hazardous waste requirements
pursuant to RCRA 3006 and imposes no requirements other than those
imposed by State law. Therefore, this rule complies with applicable
executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:
1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning Review
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this proposed rule
from its review under Executive Order (EO) 12866, (58 FR 51735, October
4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB.
2. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this proposed rule approves preexisting 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.
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
EO 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule because it will not
have federalism implications (i.e., substantial direct effects on the
State, 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 described in EO 13132.
6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
EO13175 does not apply to this proposed rule because it will not
have tribal implications (i.e., substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes). As stated
previously, this proposed action would have no effect on the Indian
country within the State's borders and EPA will continue to implement
and administer the RCRA program in Indian country within the State.
7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks
This proposed rule is not subject to EO 13045 because it is not
economically significant and it is not based on health or safety risks.
8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to EO 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866.
9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
EPA approves State programs as long as they meet criteria required
by RCRA, so it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, in
its review of a State program, to require the use of any particular
voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that meets
the requirements of RCRA. Thus, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advance Act does not apply to this proposed
rule.
10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations
Because this rule addresses authorizing pre-existing State rules
and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or
environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order
12898.
11. Executive Order 12988
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729,
February 7,
[[Page 60403]]
1996), in issuing this proposed 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.
12. Executive Order 12630: Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings
EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15,
1988) by examining the takings implications of the proposed 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.
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 notice 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: September 13, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2010-24001 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
