Alabama: Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions, 63461-63465 [2018-26357]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 236 / Monday, December 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Dated: November 16, 2018.
Jeffrey T. Morris,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Audrey Baker, Materials and Waste
Management Branch, RCR Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960;
telephone number: (404) 562–8483; fax
number: (404) 562–9964; email address:
baker.audrey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2018–26685 Filed 12–7–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA–R04–RCRA–2018–0529; FRL–9987–
36–Region 4]
Alabama: Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Alabama has applied to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for final authorization of changes to its
hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), as amended. EPA has
reviewed Alabama’s application and is
proposing to determine that these
changes satisfy all requirements needed
to qualify for final authorization.
Therefore, we are proposing to authorize
the State’s changes. EPA seeks public
comment prior to taking final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 9, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
RCRA–2018–0529, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://
www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Dec 07, 2018
Jkt 247001
A. Why are revisions to state programs
necessary?
States that have received final
authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must
maintain a hazardous waste program
that is equivalent to, consistent with,
and no less stringent than the federal
program. 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
change their programs because of
changes to EPA’s regulations in 40 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,
260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
New federal requirements and
prohibitions imposed by federal
regulations that EPA promulgates
pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA)
take effect in authorized states at the
same time that they take effect in
unauthorized states. Thus, EPA
implements those requirements and
prohibitions in the states, including the
issuance of new permits implementing
those requirements, until the states are
granted authorization to do so.
B. What decision is EPA proposing to
make in this rule?
Alabama submitted final complete
program revision applications, dated
November 2, 2016 and May 11, 2018,
seeking authorization of changes to its
hazardous waste program that
correspond to certain federal rules
promulgated between July 1, 2004 and
June 30, 2015 (including RCRA
Clusters 1 XV, XVI, XIX through XXI,
XXIII, and XXIV). EPA concludes that
Alabama’s applications to revise its
authorized program meet all of the
statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA, as set forth in
RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C.
6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore,
EPA proposes to grant Alabama final
authorization to operate its hazardous
1 A ‘‘cluster’’ is a grouping of hazardous waste
rules that EPA promulgates from July 1 of one year
to June 30 of the following year.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63461
waste program with the changes
described in the authorization
applications, and as outlined below in
Section F of this document.
Alabama has responsibility for
permitting treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities within its borders
(except in Indian country) and for
carrying out the aspects of the RCRA
program described in its revised
program applications, subject to the
limitations of HSWA, as discussed
above.
C. What is the effect of this proposed
authorization decision?
If Alabama is authorized for the
changes described in Alabama’s
authorization applications, these
changes will become part of the
authorized State hazardous waste
program, and therefore will be federally
enforceable. Alabama will continue to
have primary enforcement authority and
responsibility for its State hazardous
waste program. EPA would retain its
authorities under RCRA sections 3007,
3008, 3013, and 7003, including its
authority to:
• Conduct inspections, and require
monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;
• Enforce RCRA requirements,
including authorized State program
requirements, and suspend or revoke
permits; and
• Take enforcement actions regardless
of whether the State has taken its own
actions.
This action will not impose additional
requirements on the regulated
community because the regulations for
which EPA is proposing to authorize
Alabama are already effective, and are
not changed by today’s proposed action.
D. What happens if EPA receives
comments that oppose this action?
EPA will evaluate any comments
received on this proposed action and
will make a final decision on approval
or disapproval of Alabama’s proposed
authorization. Our decision will be
published in the Federal Register. You
may not have another opportunity to
comment. If you want to comment on
this authorization, you must do so at
this time.
E. What has Alabama previously been
authorized for?
Alabama initially received final
authorization on December 8, 1987,
effective December 22, 1987 (52 FR
46466), to implement the RCRA
hazardous waste management program.
EPA granted authorization for changes
to Alabama’s program on the following
dates: November 29, 1991, effective
January 28, 1992 (56 FR 60926); May 13,
E:\FR\FM\10DEP1.SGM
10DEP1
63462
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 236 / Monday, December 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
1992, effective July 12, 1992 (57 FR
20422); October 21, 1992, effective
December 21, 1992 (57 FR 47996);
March 17, 1993, effective May 17, 1993
(58 FR 20422); September 24, 1993,
effective November 23, 1993 (58 FR
49932); February 1, 1994, effective April
4, 1994 (59 FR 4594); November 14,
1994, effective January 13, 1995 (59 FR
56407); August 14, 1995, effective
October 13, 1995 (60 FR 41818);
February 14, 1996, effective April 15,
1996 (61 FR 5718); April 25, 1996,
effective June 24, 1996 (61 FR 5718);
November 21, 1997, effective February
10, 1998 (62 FR 62262); December 20,
2000, effective February 20, 2001 (65 FR
79769); March 15, 2005, effective May
16, 2005 (70 FR 12593); June 2, 2005,
effective August 1, 2005 (70 FR 32247);
September 13, 2006, effective November
13, 2006 (71 FR 53989); April 2, 2008,
effective June 2, 2008 (73 FR 17924);
and March 20, 2017, effective May 19,
2017 (82 FR 14327).
F. What changes are we proposing with
today’s action?
Alabama submitted two separate final
complete program revision applications
seeking authorization of changes to its
hazardous waste management program
in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. Its
application dated November 2, 2016,
included changes associated with 71 FR
16862; 2 208 and 220, and its
application dated May 11, 2018,
included changes associated with
Checklists 206.1, 207, 209, 211, 213,
222, 223, 225–227, 232, and 234. EPA
proposes to determine, subject to receipt
of written comments that oppose this
action, that Alabama’s hazardous waste
program revisions are equivalent to,
consistent with, and no less stringent
than the federal program, and therefore
satisfy all of the requirements necessary
to qualify for final authorization.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to
authorize Alabama for the following
program changes:
TABLE 1
Description of federal requirement
Analogous State authority 3
Federal Register date and page
Checklist 206.1, Nonwastewaters from
Dyes and Pigments (Correction).
Checklist 207, Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest Rule.
70 FR 35032 6/16/05 .............................
335–14–2–.04(3)(d)2. and (3)(d)3.(iv)(II).
70 FR 10776 3/4/05, 70 FR 35034 6/16/
05.
Checklist 208, Methods Innovation Rule
and SW–846 Update IIIB.
70 FR 34538 6/14/05, 70 FR 44150 8/1/
05.
Checklist 209, Universal Waste Rule:
Specific Provisions for Mercury Containing Equipment.
70 FR 45508 8/5/05 ...............................
Checklist 211, Revision of Wastewater
Treatment Exemptions for Hazardous
Waste Mixtures (‘‘Headworks exemptions’’).
Checklist 213,4 Burden Reduction Initiative.
70 FR 57769 10/4/05 .............................
335–14–1.–02(1)(a)70., (1)(a)164.–165.; 335–14–2.01(7), (7)(b)(iii)(II); 335–14–
3–.02(1)(a), (2)(a)–(b), (2)(b)1.–2., (8); 335–14–3–.03(3)(b), (4), (5)(k); 335–
14–3–.05(5)(c), (5)(e); 335–14–3–.06(1)(c)–(e); 335–14–3 Appendix I—Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest and Instructions; 335–14–4–.02(1)(a)1.–3.,
(1)(g), (2)(b); 335–14–5–.05(1), (2)(a)1.(i)–(v), (2)(a)2., (2)(b)4., (2)(e), (3)(a)–
(e), (3)(f)1.–7., (3)(g), (7)(a); 335–14–6–.05(1)(a), (2)(a)1.(i)–(iv), (2)(b)4.,
(2)(e), (3)(a)–(g), and (7)(a).
335–14–1–.02(2); 335–14–1–.03(1)(d); 335–14–2–.01(3)(a)2.(v); 335–14–2–
.03(2)(a)1.–2.; 335–14–2–.04(6)(b)2.(iii)(I)–(II); 335–14–2 Appendix I—Representative Sampling Methods; 335–14–2 Appendix II—III [Reserved]; 335–
14–5–.10(1)(a); 335–14–5–.14(15)(c); 335–14–5–.27(c)(5); 335–14–5–
.28(c)(14); 335–14–5 Appendix IX—Groundwater Monitoring List; 335–14–6–
.10(1)(a); 335–14–6–.14(15)(d); 335–14–6–.27(5); 335–14–6–.28(14); 335–
14–6–.29(2), (5); 335–14–7–.08(1), (3), (7), (13); 335–14–7 Appendix IX—
Methods Manual for Compliance with the BIF Regulations; 335–14–8–.02
(2)(b)2.(i)(III)–(IV), (10)(c)1.(iii)–(iv), (13)(a)2.(ii)(II); 335–14–8–.06(5)(c)2.(i)–
(ii); 335–14–9–.04(1), (8); 335–14–9 Appendix IX—Extraction Procedure (EP)
Toxicity Test Method and Structural Integrity Test (SW–846, Method 1310);
335–14–17–.02(1)(b)1.(ii); 335–14–17–.05(6)(c); 335–14–17–.06(4)(c); and
335–14–17–.07(4)(c).
335–14–1–.02(1)(a)12., (1)(a)154., (1)(a)166., (1)(a)254., (1)(a)295.; 335–14–2–
.01(9)(c); 335–14–5–.01(1)(g)12.(iii); 335–14–6–.01(1)(c)14.(iii); 335–14–8–
.01(1)(c)2.(ix)(III); 335–14–9–.01(1); 335–14–11–.01(1)(a)3., (4)(a)–(c); 335–
14–11–.02(4)(c), (5)(d); 335–14–11–.03(3)(b)4.–5.; 335–14–11–.03(4)(c) and
(5)(d).
335–14–2–.01(3)(a)2.(iv)(I)–(II), (IV), and (VII)–(VIII).
Checklist 220, Academic Laboratories
Generator Standards.
73 FR 72912 12/1/08 .............................
71 FR 16862 4/4/06 ...............................
2 A ‘‘checklist’’ is developed by EPA for each
federal rule amending the RCRA regulations. The
checklists document the changes made by each
federal rule and are presented and numbered in
chronological order by date of promulgation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Dec 07, 2018
Jkt 247001
335–14–1–.03(11)(b)1.–7.; 335–14–2–.01(4)(a)9.(iii)(v), (4)(f)9.; 335–14–5–
.02(6)(b)4., (7)(a)4.; 335–14–5–.04(3)(b), (7)(i); 335–14–5–.05(4)(b)1.–2.,
(4)(b)6., (4)(b)8., (4)(b)10., (4)(b)18.–19.; 335–14–5–.06(9)(d), (9)(g)2.–3.;
335–14–5–.06(10)(f)–(g), (11)(g); 335–14–5–.07(4)(e)5., (6), (11); 335–14–5–
.08(4)(i), (6)(i), (8)(e); 335–14–5–.09(5); 335–14–5–.10(2)(a), (2)(b)5.(ii),
(3)(a)–(b), (4)(a), (4)(i)2., (6)(b)–(g), (7)(f); 335–14–5–.12(2)(c); 335–14–5–
.13(11)(b); 335–14–5–.14(15)(f); 335–14–5–.15(4)(a)2., (8)(d); 335–14–5–
.19(5)(c)2.; 335–14–5–.23(2)(a)–(c); 335–14–5–.23(4)(a)4.(ii), (4)(g), (5)(a);
335–14–5–.28(12)–(13); 335–14–5–.30(1), (2)(c)2., (2)(c)4.; 335–14–6–
.02(6)(b)4., (7)(a)4.; 335–14–6–.04(3)(b), (7)(j); 335–14–6–.05(4)(b); 335–14–
6–.06(1)(d)1., (1)(d)3., (4)(d)2., (4)(d)5.; 335–14–6–.07(4)(e)5., (6), (11); 335–
14–6–.08(4)(h), (6)(h), (8)(e); 335–14–6–.09(5); 335–14–6–.10(2)(a),
(2)(b)5.(ii), (3)(a)–(b), (4)(a), (4)(i)2., (6)(a)–(f), (7)(f), (12)(c)–(g); 335–14–6–
.11(2)(a), (5); 335–14–6–.12(10)(a); 335–14–6–.13(11)(e); 335–14–6–
.14(2)(a), (4)(a); 335–14–6–.14(15)(b)–(g); 335–14–6–.23(2)(a)–(c),
(4)(a)4.(ii), (4)(g), (5)(a); 335–14–6–.28(12)–(13); 335–14–6–.30(1), (2)(c)2.,
(2)(c)4.; 335–14–7–.08(3)–(4); 335–14–8–.02(5)(a), (7)(a), (17)(c)15.; 335–
14–9–.01(7) and (9).
335–14–2–.01(5)(c)6.–7.; 335–14–3–.01(j), (j)1.–2.; 335–14–1–.02(1)(a)30.,
(1)(a)38., (1)(a)84., (1)(a)111., (1)(a)140.–142., (1)(a)181., (1)(a)222.,
(1)(a)277., (1)(a)298., (1)(a)322.; 335–14–1–.12; and 335–14–3–.12(2)–(17).
3 The Alabama regulatory citations are from the
Alabama Hazardous Waste Management Rules,
effective March 31, 2011 (Checklist 223); April 8,
2016 (Checklists 208 and 220); and March 31, 2017,
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(Checklists 206.1, 207, 209, 211, 213, 222, 225, 226,
227, 232, and 234).
4 The National Environmental Performance Track
Program referenced in the Burden Reduction
Initiative Rule has been discontinued.
E:\FR\FM\10DEP1.SGM
10DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 236 / Monday, December 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
63463
TABLE 1—Continued
Description of federal requirement
Federal Register date and page
Analogous State authority 3
Checklist 222, OECD Requirements; Export Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid
Batteries.
75 FR 1236 1/8/10 .................................
Checklist 223, Hazardous Waste Technical Corrections and Clarifications.
75 FR 12989 3/18/10, 75 FR 31716 6/4/
10.
Checklist 225, Removal of Saccharin
and its Salts from the Lists of Hazardous Wastes.
Checklist 226, Academic Laboratories
Generator Standards Technical Corrections.
Checklist 227, Revision of the Land Disposal Treatment Standards for Carbamate Wastes.
Checklist 232, Revisions to the Export
Provisions of the Cathode Ray Tube
(CRT) Rule.
Checklist 234, Response to Vacaturs of
the Comparable Fuels Rule and the
Gasification Rule.
75 FR 78918 12/17/10 ...........................
335–14–3–.01(1)(d); 335–14–3–.05(6), (9)(a)–(b); 335–14–3–.09(1)(a)–(b),
(3)(a)–(g), (4)(a)–(e), (5)(a)–(e), (6)(a)–(g), (7)(a)–(b), (8)(a)–(c), (9), (10)(a)–
(d); 335–14–1–.02(1)(a)44., (1)(a)58.–61., (1)(a)99., (1)(a)121., (1)(a)177.–
178., (1)(a)218.–219., (1)(a)220.(viii) and (xiii), and (1)(a)268.; 335–14–4–
.01(1)(d); 335–14–5–.02(3)(a)2.; 335–14–5–.05(2)(a)2., (2)(d); 335–14–6–
.02(3)(a)2.; 335–14–6–.05(2)(a)2., (2)(d); and 335–14–7–.07(1)(a).
335–14–1–.02(1)(a)173., (1)(a)208.; 335–14–2–.01(2)(c) Table 1, (4)(a)17.(vi),
(5)(b), (5)(e), (5)(f)2., (5)(g), (6)(a)2.–3., (6)(c)1., (6)(d), (7)(a)1.(ii), (7)(a)2.(ii),
(7)(b)1., (7)(b)3.; 335–14–2–.03(4)(a)8.; 335–14–2–.04(1)(c)–(d), (2)(a), (3)(a)
Table, (4)(f) Table; 335–14–2 Appendix VII—Basis for Listing Hazardous
Waste; 335–14–3–.01(1)(f), (2)(d); 335–14–3–.02(4)(f); 335–14–3–.03(5)(a)–
(c), (5)(d)5., (5)(g), (5)(j); 335–14–3–.04(2)(b), (3)(a), (3)(d); 335–14–3–
.06(1)(b); 335–14–5–.04(3), (7)(d)2.; 335–14–5–.05(3)(e)6., (3)(f)1. 7.–8.;
335–14–5–.14(15)(e), (17)(b); 335–14–5–.19(3)(a)3.(ii)–(iv), (3)(e)4.(iv)(VI);
335–14–6–.04(3)(b), (7)(d)2.; 335–14–6–.05(3)(e)6., (3)(f)1., (3)(f)7.–8; 5 335–
14–6–.14(15)(f), (17)(b); 335–14–7–.03(1)(b), (3); 335–14–7–.06(1)(d); 335–
14–7–.07(1)(b); 335–14–7–.08(2); 335–14–9–.04(1), (8); and 335–14–8–
.01(4)(a).
335–14–2–.04(4) Table after subparagraph (e); 335–14–2 Appendix VIII—Hazardous Constituents; 335–14–9–.00; and 335–14–9 Appendix VII—Effective
Dates of Surface Disposed Prohibited Hazardous Wastes.
335–14–1–.02(1)(a)30.; 335–14–3–.12(7)(b)3.(i), (13)(e)1., (15)(a)1., and
(15)(b)1.
75 FR 79304 12/20/10 ...........................
76 FR 34147 6/13/11 .............................
335–14–9–.00.
79 FR 36220 6/26/14 .............................
335–14–1–.02(1)(a)61.; 335–14–2–.05(1)(a)5.(i)(VI), (1)(a)5.(x)–(xi), (3), and
(3)(a)–(b).
80 FR 18777 4/8/15 ...............................
335–14–2–.01(4)(a)12.(i), (4)(a)16.; and 335–14–2–.04(9).
G. Where are the revised state rules
different from the federal rules?
When revised state rules differ from
the federal rules in the RCRA state
authorization process, EPA determines
whether the state rules are equivalent to,
more stringent than, or broader in scope
than the federal program. Pursuant to
section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929,
state programs may contain
requirements that are more stringent
than the federal regulations. Such more
stringent requirements can be federally
authorized and, once authorized,
become federally enforceable. Although
the statute does not prevent states from
adopting regulations that are broader in
scope than the federal program, such
regulations cannot be authorized and
are not federally enforceable.
In its review of the Alabama
regulations submitted as part of the
program revision applications that are
the subject of this proposed rule, EPA
did not find any State regulations to be
broader in scope than the federal
program. However, EPA has determined
that certain regulations included in
Alabama’s program revision
applications are more stringent than the
federal program. All of these more
stringent requirements will become part
of the federally enforceable RCRA
program in Alabama when authorized.
These more stringent requirements are
set forth in Table 2 below:
TABLE 2
Alabama more stringent provisions
Explanation
335–14–5–.05(7)(a) and 335–14–6–.05(7)(a) .....
Alabama is more stringent than the federal program at 40 CFR 264.76(a) and 265.76(a) by including the following additional recordkeeping requirement: ‘‘The owner or operator must retain a copy of each un-manifested waste report for, at least, three (3) years from the due
date of the report.’’
Alabama is more stringent than the federal program at 40 CFR 273.32(b)(5) by requiring a
large quantity handler of universal waste to include certain information in its notice of universal waste management that is no longer required at the federal level.
Alabama is more stringent than the federal program at 40 CFR 264.280(b) and 265.280(e) by
requiring that the professional engineer be ‘‘independent.’’
Alabama is more stringent than the federal program at 40 CFR 265.56(i) by requiring the
owner or operator to notify before resuming operations.
Alabama is more stringent than the federal program at 40 CFR 265.73(b)(6) by requiring a facility to maintain in its operating record additional monitoring, testing, and analytical data not
required by the federal regulation.
Alabama is more stringent than the federal program at 40 CFR 265.201(c) by requiring that inspections be documented.
335–14–11–.03(b)5 .............................................
335–14–5–.13(11)(b) and 335–14–6–.13(11)(e)
335–14–6–.04(7)(j) ..............................................
335–14–6–.05(4)(b)6 ...........................................
335–14–6–.10(12)(c) ...........................................
5 The correct internal cross reference in 335–14–
6–.05(3)(f)8. to the State analog for 40 CFR 262.42(a)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Dec 07, 2018
Jkt 247001
should be: ‘‘335–14–3–.04(3)(a)’’ not ‘‘335–14–3–
.04(3).’’
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10DEP1.SGM
10DEP1
63464
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 236 / Monday, December 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
EPA cannot delegate certain federal
requirements associated with the federal
manifest registry system in the Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest Rule
(Checklists 207). Additionally, EPA
cannot delegate the federal requirements
associated with international shipments
(i.e., import and export provisions)
associated with the OECD Requirements
for Export Shipments of Spent LeadAcid Batteries (Checklist 222) or the
Revisions to the Export Provisions of the
Cathode Ray Tube Rule (Checklist 232).
Alabama has adopted these
requirements and appropriately
preserved EPA’s authority to implement
them.
H. Who handles permits after the final
authorization takes effect?
Alabama 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 EPA issued
prior to the effective date of this
authorization until they expire or are
terminated. EPA will not issue any new
permits or new portions of permits for
the provisions listed in Table 1 above
after the effective date of the final
authorization. EPA will continue to
implement and issue permits for HSWA
requirements for which Alabama is not
yet authorized.
I. How does today’s proposed action
affect Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151)
in Alabama?
Alabama is not authorized to carry out
its hazardous waste program in Indian
country within the State, which
includes the Poarch Band of Creek
Indians. Therefore, this proposed action
has no effect on Indian country. EPA
will continue to implement and
administer the RCRA program on these
lands.
J. What is codification and will EPA
codify Alabama’s hazardous waste
program as proposed 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. EPA does this by
referencing the authorized state rules in
40 CFR part 272. EPA is not proposing
to codify the authorization of Alabama’s
changes at this time. However, EPA
reserves the amendment of 40 CFR part
272, subpart B, for the authorization of
Alabama’s program changes at a later
date.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Dec 07, 2018
Jkt 247001
K. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has exempted this action from
the requirements of Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011). This action proposes to authorize
State requirements for the purpose of
RCRA section 3006 and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. Therefore, this
action is not subject to review by OMB.
This action is not an Executive Order
13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017)
regulatory action because actions such
as today’s proposed authorization of
Alabama’s revised hazardous waste
program under RCRA are exempted
under Executive Order 12866.
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 proposes to authorize 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 of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538). 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
proposes to authorize State
requirements as part of the State RCRA
hazardous waste program without
altering the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established by RCRA.
This action also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not
economically significant and it does not
make decisions based on environmental
health or safety risks. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA
grants a state’s application for
authorization as long as the state meets
the criteria required by RCRA. It would
thus be inconsistent with applicable law
for EPA, when it reviews a state
authorization application, to require the
use of any particular voluntary
consensus standard in place of another
standard that otherwise satisfies the
requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in
proposing 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
this action in accordance with the
‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings’’ issued under the executive
order. This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
‘‘Burden’’ is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
Because this action proposes
authorization of pre-existing State rules
which are at least equivalent to, and no
less stringent than existing federal
requirements, and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law, and there are no
anticipated significant adverse human
health or environmental effects, this
proposed rule is not subject to Executive
Order 12898.
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,
E:\FR\FM\10DEP1.SGM
10DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 236 / Monday, December 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules
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, and
6974(b).
Dated: November 20, 2018.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018–26357 Filed 12–7–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:39 Dec 07, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
63465
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\10DEP1.SGM
10DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 236 (Monday, December 10, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63461-63465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26357]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[EPA-R04-RCRA-2018-0529; FRL-9987-36-Region 4]
Alabama: Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Alabama has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended.
EPA has reviewed Alabama's application and is proposing to determine
that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization. Therefore, we are proposing to authorize the State's
changes. EPA seeks public comment prior to taking final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 9, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
RCRA-2018-0529, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Baker, Materials and Waste
Management Branch, RCR Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-
8960; telephone number: (404) 562-8483; fax number: (404) 562-9964;
email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?
States that have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
than the federal program. 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 change their programs because of changes to
EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,
260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by federal
regulations that EPA promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) take effect in authorized states at the
same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. Thus, EPA
implements those requirements and prohibitions in the states, including
the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until the
states are granted authorization to do so.
B. What decision is EPA proposing to make in this rule?
Alabama submitted final complete program revision applications,
dated November 2, 2016 and May 11, 2018, seeking authorization of
changes to its hazardous waste program that correspond to certain
federal rules promulgated between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2015
(including RCRA Clusters \1\ XV, XVI, XIX through XXI, XXIII, and
XXIV). EPA concludes that Alabama's applications to revise its
authorized program meet all of the statutory and regulatory
requirements established by RCRA, as set forth in RCRA section 3006(b),
42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, EPA proposes to
grant Alabama final authorization to operate its hazardous waste
program with the changes described in the authorization applications,
and as outlined below in Section F of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A ``cluster'' is a grouping of hazardous waste rules that
EPA promulgates from July 1 of one year to June 30 of the following
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian country) and
for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its
revised program applications, subject to the limitations of HSWA, as
discussed above.
C. What is the effect of this proposed authorization decision?
If Alabama is authorized for the changes described in Alabama's
authorization applications, these changes will become part of the
authorized State hazardous waste program, and therefore will be
federally enforceable. Alabama will continue to have primary
enforcement authority and responsibility for its State hazardous waste
program. EPA would retain its authorities under RCRA sections 3007,
3008, 3013, and 7003, including its authority to:
Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests,
analyses or reports;
Enforce RCRA requirements, including authorized State
program requirements, and suspend or revoke permits; and
Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State
has taken its own actions.
This action will not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations for which EPA is proposing
to authorize Alabama are already effective, and are not changed by
today's proposed action.
D. What happens if EPA receives comments that oppose this action?
EPA will evaluate any comments received on this proposed action and
will make a final decision on approval or disapproval of Alabama's
proposed authorization. Our decision will be published in the Federal
Register. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want
to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time.
E. What has Alabama previously been authorized for?
Alabama initially received final authorization on December 8, 1987,
effective December 22, 1987 (52 FR 46466), to implement the RCRA
hazardous waste management program. EPA granted authorization for
changes to Alabama's program on the following dates: November 29, 1991,
effective January 28, 1992 (56 FR 60926); May 13,
[[Page 63462]]
1992, effective July 12, 1992 (57 FR 20422); October 21, 1992,
effective December 21, 1992 (57 FR 47996); March 17, 1993, effective
May 17, 1993 (58 FR 20422); September 24, 1993, effective November 23,
1993 (58 FR 49932); February 1, 1994, effective April 4, 1994 (59 FR
4594); November 14, 1994, effective January 13, 1995 (59 FR 56407);
August 14, 1995, effective October 13, 1995 (60 FR 41818); February 14,
1996, effective April 15, 1996 (61 FR 5718); April 25, 1996, effective
June 24, 1996 (61 FR 5718); November 21, 1997, effective February 10,
1998 (62 FR 62262); December 20, 2000, effective February 20, 2001 (65
FR 79769); March 15, 2005, effective May 16, 2005 (70 FR 12593); June
2, 2005, effective August 1, 2005 (70 FR 32247); September 13, 2006,
effective November 13, 2006 (71 FR 53989); April 2, 2008, effective
June 2, 2008 (73 FR 17924); and March 20, 2017, effective May 19, 2017
(82 FR 14327).
F. What changes are we proposing with today's action?
Alabama submitted two separate final complete program revision
applications seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste
management program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. Its application
dated November 2, 2016, included changes associated with 71 FR 16862;
\2\ 208 and 220, and its application dated May 11, 2018, included
changes associated with Checklists 206.1, 207, 209, 211, 213, 222, 223,
225-227, 232, and 234. EPA proposes to determine, subject to receipt of
written comments that oppose this action, that Alabama's hazardous
waste program revisions are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less
stringent than the federal program, and therefore satisfy all of the
requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to authorize Alabama for the following program
changes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A ``checklist'' is developed by EPA for each federal rule
amending the RCRA regulations. The checklists document the changes
made by each federal rule and are presented and numbered in
chronological order by date of promulgation.
\3\ The Alabama regulatory citations are from the Alabama
Hazardous Waste Management Rules, effective March 31, 2011
(Checklist 223); April 8, 2016 (Checklists 208 and 220); and March
31, 2017, (Checklists 206.1, 207, 209, 211, 213, 222, 225, 226, 227,
232, and 234).
\4\ The National Environmental Performance Track Program
referenced in the Burden Reduction Initiative Rule has been
discontinued.
Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of federal Federal Register Analogous State
requirement date and page authority \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checklist 206.1, 70 FR 35032 6/16/ 335-14-2-.04(3)(d)2.
Nonwastewaters from Dyes and 05. and
Pigments (Correction). (3)(d)3.(iv)(II).
Checklist 207, Uniform 70 FR 10776 3/4/ 335-14-1.-02(1)(a)70.
Hazardous Waste Manifest Rule. 05, 70 FR 35034 , (1)(a)164.-165.;
6/16/05. 335-14-2.01(7),
(7)(b)(iii)(II); 335-
14-3-.02(1)(a),
(2)(a)-(b), (2)(b)1.-
2., (8); 335-14-3-
.03(3)(b), (4),
(5)(k); 335-14-3-
.05(5)(c), (5)(e);
335-14-3-.06(1)(c)-(
e); 335-14-3
Appendix I--Uniform
Hazardous Waste
Manifest and
Instructions; 335-14-
4-.02(1)(a)1.-3.,
(1)(g), (2)(b); 335-
14-5-.05(1),
(2)(a)1.(i)-(v),
(2)(a)2., (2)(b)4.,
(2)(e), (3)(a)-(e),
(3)(f)1.-7., (3)(g),
(7)(a); 335-14-6-
.05(1)(a),
(2)(a)1.(i)-(iv),
(2)(b)4., (2)(e),
(3)(a)-(g), and
(7)(a).
Checklist 208, Methods 70 FR 34538 6/14/ 335-14-1-.02(2); 335-
Innovation Rule and SW-846 05, 70 FR 44150 14-1-.03(1)(d); 335-
Update IIIB. 8/1/05. 14-2-.01(3)(a)2.(v);
335-14-2-.03(2)(a)1.
-2.; 335-14-2-
.04(6)(b)2.(iii)(I)-
(II); 335-14-2
Appendix I--
Representative
Sampling Methods;
335-14-2 Appendix
II--III [Reserved];
335-14-5-.10(1)(a);
335-14-5-.14(15)(c);
335-14-5-.27(c)(5);
335-14-5-.28(c)(14);
335-14-5 Appendix
IX--Groundwater
Monitoring List; 335-
14-6-.10(1)(a); 335-
14-6-.14(15)(d); 335-
14-6-.27(5); 335-14-
6-.28(14); 335-14-6-
.29(2), (5); 335-14-
7-.08(1), (3), (7),
(13); 335-14-7
Appendix IX--Methods
Manual for
Compliance with the
BIF Regulations; 335-
14-8-.02
(2)(b)2.(i)(III)-(IV
), (10)(c)1.(iii)-
(iv),
(13)(a)2.(ii)(II);
335-14-8-.06(5)(c)2.
(i)-(ii); 335-14-9-
.04(1), (8); 335-14-
9 Appendix IX--
Extraction Procedure
(EP) Toxicity Test
Method and
Structural Integrity
Test (SW-846, Method
1310); 335-14-17-
.02(1)(b)1.(ii); 335-
14-17-.05(6)(c); 335-
14-17-.06(4)(c); and
335-14-17-.07(4)(c).
Checklist 209, Universal Waste 70 FR 45508 8/5/ 335-14-1-.02(1)(a)12.
Rule: Specific Provisions for 05. , (1)(a)154.,
Mercury Containing Equipment. (1)(a)166.,
(1)(a)254.,
(1)(a)295.; 335-14-2-
.01(9)(c); 335-14-5-
.01(1)(g)12.(iii);
335-14-6-.01(1)(c)14
.(iii); 335-14-8-
.01(1)(c)2.(ix)(III)
; 335-14-9-.01(1);
335-14-11-.01(1)(a)3
., (4)(a)-(c); 335-
14-11-.02(4)(c),
(5)(d); 335-14-11-
.03(3)(b)4.-5.; 335-
14-11-.03(4)(c) and
(5)(d).
Checklist 211, Revision of 70 FR 57769 10/4/ 335-14-2-.01(3)(a)2.(
Wastewater Treatment 05. iv)(I)-(II), (IV),
Exemptions for Hazardous and (VII)-(VIII).
Waste Mixtures (``Headworks
exemptions'').
Checklist 213,\4\ Burden 71 FR 16862 4/4/ 335-14-1-.03(11)(b)1.
Reduction Initiative. 06. -7.; 335-14-2-
.01(4)(a)9.(iii)(v),
(4)(f)9.; 335-14-5-
.02(6)(b)4.,
(7)(a)4.; 335-14-5-
.04(3)(b), (7)(i);
335-14-5-.05(4)(b)1.
-2., (4)(b)6.,
(4)(b)8., (4)(b)10.,
(4)(b)18.-19.; 335-
14-5-.06(9)(d),
(9)(g)2.-3.; 335-14-
5-.06(10)(f)-(g),
(11)(g); 335-14-5-
.07(4)(e)5., (6),
(11); 335-14-5-
.08(4)(i), (6)(i),
(8)(e); 335-14-5-
.09(5); 335-14-5-
.10(2)(a),
(2)(b)5.(ii), (3)(a)-
(b), (4)(a),
(4)(i)2., (6)(b)-
(g), (7)(f); 335-14-
5-.12(2)(c); 335-14-
5-.13(11)(b); 335-14-
5-.14(15)(f); 335-14-
5-.15(4)(a)2.,
(8)(d); 335-14-5-
.19(5)(c)2.; 335-14-
5-.23(2)(a)-(c); 335-
14-5-.23(4)(a)4.(ii)
, (4)(g), (5)(a);
335-14-5-.28(12)-(13
); 335-14-5-.30(1),
(2)(c)2., (2)(c)4.;
335-14-6-.02(6)(b)4.
, (7)(a)4.; 335-14-6-
.04(3)(b), (7)(j);
335-14-6-.05(4)(b);
335-14-6-.06(1)(d)1.
, (1)(d)3.,
(4)(d)2., (4)(d)5.;
335-14-6-.07(4)(e)5.
, (6), (11); 335-14-
6-.08(4)(h), (6)(h),
(8)(e); 335-14-6-
.09(5); 335-14-6-
.10(2)(a),
(2)(b)5.(ii), (3)(a)-
(b), (4)(a),
(4)(i)2., (6)(a)-
(f), (7)(f), (12)(c)-
(g); 335-14-6-
.11(2)(a), (5); 335-
14-6-.12(10)(a); 335-
14-6-.13(11)(e); 335-
14-6-.14(2)(a),
(4)(a); 335-14-6-
.14(15)(b)-(g); 335-
14-6-.23(2)(a)-(c),
(4)(a)4.(ii),
(4)(g), (5)(a); 335-
14-6-.28(12)-(13);
335-14-6-.30(1),
(2)(c)2., (2)(c)4.;
335-14-7-.08(3)-(4);
335-14-8-.02(5)(a),
(7)(a), (17)(c)15.;
335-14-9-.01(7) and
(9).
Checklist 220, Academic 73 FR 72912 12/1/ 335-14-2-.01(5)(c)6.-
Laboratories Generator 08. 7.; 335-14-3-.01(j),
Standards. (j)1.-2.; 335-14-1-
.02(1)(a)30.,
(1)(a)38.,
(1)(a)84.,
(1)(a)111.,
(1)(a)140.-142.,
(1)(a)181.,
(1)(a)222.,
(1)(a)277.,
(1)(a)298.,
(1)(a)322.; 335-14-1-
.12; and 335-14-3-
.12(2)-(17).
[[Page 63463]]
Checklist 222, OECD 75 FR 1236 1/8/10 335-14-3-.01(1)(d);
Requirements; Export 335-14-3-.05(6),
Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid (9)(a)-(b); 335-14-3-
Batteries. .09(1)(a)-(b),
(3)(a)-(g), (4)(a)-
(e), (5)(a)-(e),
(6)(a)-(g), (7)(a)-
(b), (8)(a)-(c),
(9), (10)(a)-(d);
335-14-1-.02(1)(a)44
., (1)(a)58.-61.,
(1)(a)99.,
(1)(a)121.,
(1)(a)177.-178.,
(1)(a)218.-219.,
(1)(a)220.(viii) and
(xiii), and
(1)(a)268.; 335-14-4-
.01(1)(d); 335-14-5-
.02(3)(a)2.; 335-14-
5-.05(2)(a)2.,
(2)(d); 335-14-6-
.02(3)(a)2.; 335-14-
6-.05(2)(a)2.,
(2)(d); and 335-14-7-
.07(1)(a).
Checklist 223, Hazardous Waste 75 FR 12989 3/18/ 335-14-1-.02(1)(a)173
Technical Corrections and 10, 75 FR 31716 ., (1)(a)208.; 335-
Clarifications. 6/4/10. 14-2-.01(2)(c) Table
1, (4)(a)17.(vi),
(5)(b), (5)(e),
(5)(f)2., (5)(g),
(6)(a)2.-3.,
(6)(c)1., (6)(d),
(7)(a)1.(ii),
(7)(a)2.(ii),
(7)(b)1., (7)(b)3.;
335-14-2-.03(4)(a)8.
; 335-14-2-.04(1)(c)-
(d), (2)(a), (3)(a)
Table, (4)(f) Table;
335-14-2 Appendix
VII--Basis for
Listing Hazardous
Waste; 335-14-3-
.01(1)(f), (2)(d);
335-14-3-.02(4)(f);
335-14-3-.03(5)(a)-(
c), (5)(d)5.,
(5)(g), (5)(j); 335-
14-3-.04(2)(b),
(3)(a), (3)(d); 335-
14-3-.06(1)(b); 335-
14-5-.04(3),
(7)(d)2.; 335-14-5-
.05(3)(e)6.,
(3)(f)1. 7.-8.; 335-
14-5-.14(15)(e),
(17)(b); 335-14-5-
.19(3)(a)3.(ii)-(iv)
, (3)(e)4.(iv)(VI);
335-14-6-.04(3)(b),
(7)(d)2.; 335-14-6-
.05(3)(e)6.,
(3)(f)1., (3)(f)7.-
8; \5\ 335-14-6-
.14(15)(f), (17)(b);
335-14-7-.03(1)(b),
(3); 335-14-7-
.06(1)(d); 335-14-7-
.07(1)(b); 335-14-7-
.08(2); 335-14-9-
.04(1), (8); and 335-
14-8-.01(4)(a).
Checklist 225, Removal of 75 FR 78918 12/17/ 335-14-2-.04(4) Table
Saccharin and its Salts from 10. after subparagraph
the Lists of Hazardous Wastes. (e); 335-14-2
Appendix VIII--
Hazardous
Constituents; 335-14-
9-.00; and 335-14-9
Appendix VII--
Effective Dates of
Surface Disposed
Prohibited Hazardous
Wastes.
Checklist 226, Academic 75 FR 79304 12/20/ 335-14-1-.02(1)(a)30.
Laboratories Generator 10. ; 335-14-3-
Standards Technical .12(7)(b)3.(i),
Corrections. (13)(e)1.,
(15)(a)1., and
(15)(b)1.
Checklist 227, Revision of the 76 FR 34147 6/13/ 335-14-9-.00.
Land Disposal Treatment 11.
Standards for Carbamate
Wastes.
Checklist 232, Revisions to 79 FR 36220 6/26/ 335-14-1-.02(1)(a)61.
the Export Provisions of the 14. ; 335-14-2-
Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Rule. .05(1)(a)5.(i)(VI),
(1)(a)5.(x)-(xi),
(3), and (3)(a)-(b).
Checklist 234, Response to 80 FR 18777 4/8/ 335-14-2-.01(4)(a)12.
Vacaturs of the Comparable 15. (i), (4)(a)16.; and
Fuels Rule and the 335-14-2-.04(9).
Gasification Rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Where are the revised state rules different from the federal rules?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The correct internal cross reference in 335-14-6-.05(3)(f)8.
to the State analog for 40 CFR 262.42(a) should be: ``335-14-
3-.04(3)(a)'' not ``335-14-3-.04(3).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When revised state rules differ from the federal rules in the RCRA
state authorization process, EPA determines whether the state rules are
equivalent to, more stringent than, or broader in scope than the
federal program. Pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929,
state programs may contain requirements that are more stringent than
the federal regulations. Such more stringent requirements can be
federally authorized and, once authorized, become federally
enforceable. Although the statute does not prevent states from adopting
regulations that are broader in scope than the federal program, such
regulations cannot be authorized and are not federally enforceable.
In its review of the Alabama regulations submitted as part of the
program revision applications that are the subject of this proposed
rule, EPA did not find any State regulations to be broader in scope
than the federal program. However, EPA has determined that certain
regulations included in Alabama's program revision applications are
more stringent than the federal program. All of these more stringent
requirements will become part of the federally enforceable RCRA program
in Alabama when authorized. These more stringent requirements are set
forth in Table 2 below:
Table 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama more stringent provisions Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
335-14-5-.05(7)(a) and 335-14-6- Alabama is more stringent than the
.05(7)(a). federal program at 40 CFR 264.76(a)
and 265.76(a) by including the
following additional recordkeeping
requirement: ``The owner or
operator must retain a copy of each
un-manifested waste report for, at
least, three (3) years from the due
date of the report.''
335-14-11-.03(b)5................. Alabama is more stringent than the
federal program at 40 CFR
273.32(b)(5) by requiring a large
quantity handler of universal waste
to include certain information in
its notice of universal waste
management that is no longer
required at the federal level.
335-14-5-.13(11)(b) and 335-14-6- Alabama is more stringent than the
.13(11)(e). federal program at 40 CFR
264.280(b) and 265.280(e) by
requiring that the professional
engineer be ``independent.''
335-14-6-.04(7)(j)................ Alabama is more stringent than the
federal program at 40 CFR 265.56(i)
by requiring the owner or operator
to notify before resuming
operations.
335-14-6-.05(4)(b)6............... Alabama is more stringent than the
federal program at 40 CFR
265.73(b)(6) by requiring a
facility to maintain in its
operating record additional
monitoring, testing, and analytical
data not required by the federal
regulation.
335-14-6-.10(12)(c)............... Alabama is more stringent than the
federal program at 40 CFR
265.201(c) by requiring that
inspections be documented.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63464]]
EPA cannot delegate certain federal requirements associated with
the federal manifest registry system in the Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest Rule (Checklists 207). Additionally, EPA cannot delegate the
federal requirements associated with international shipments (i.e.,
import and export provisions) associated with the OECD Requirements for
Export Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries (Checklist 222) or the
Revisions to the Export Provisions of the Cathode Ray Tube Rule
(Checklist 232). Alabama has adopted these requirements and
appropriately preserved EPA's authority to implement them.
H. Who handles permits after the final authorization takes effect?
Alabama 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 EPA issued prior to the effective date of this authorization
until they expire or are terminated. EPA will not issue any new permits
or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in Table 1 above
after the effective date of the final authorization. EPA will continue
to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Alabama
is not yet authorized.
I. How does today's proposed action affect Indian country (18 U.S.C.
1151) in Alabama?
Alabama is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program
in Indian country within the State, which includes the Poarch Band of
Creek Indians. Therefore, this proposed action has no effect on Indian
country. EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program
on these lands.
J. What is codification and will EPA codify Alabama's hazardous waste
program as proposed 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. EPA does this by
referencing the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is not
proposing to codify the authorization of Alabama's changes at this
time. However, EPA reserves the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart
B, for the authorization of Alabama's program changes at a later date.
K. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action
from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action proposes to
authorize State requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 3006 and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action is
not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory
action because actions such as today's proposed authorization of
Alabama's revised hazardous waste program under RCRA are exempted under
Executive Order 12866. 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 proposes to authorize 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 (2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538). 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 proposes to authorize State requirements as part of
the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically
significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental
health or safety risks. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA grants a state's application for
authorization as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA.
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it
reviews a state authorization application, to require the use of any
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard
that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in proposing 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 this action in accordance with the
``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive
order. This action does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). ``Burden'' is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. Because this action proposes authorization of pre-
existing State rules which are at least equivalent to, and no less
stringent than existing federal requirements, and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law, and there are no
anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects,
this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.
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,
[[Page 63465]]
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, and 6974(b).
Dated: November 20, 2018.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-26357 Filed 12-7-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
