Utah: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions and Incorporation by Reference, 24515-24517 [2025-10031]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 11, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest. Public notice and
comment for this action are unnecessary
because the underlying rule for which
these correcting amendments have been
prepared was already subject to a 30-day
comment period. Further, this action is
consistent with the purpose and
rationale of the final rule for which
inaccurate amendatory instructions are
being corrected herein. Because this
action does not change the EPA’s
analyses or overall actions, no purpose
would be served by additional public
notice and comment. Consequently,
additional public notice and comment
are unnecessary.
The EPA also finds that there is good
cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for
these corrections to become effective on
the date of publication of this action.
Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an
effective date of less than 30 days after
publication ‘‘as otherwise provided by
the agency for good cause found and
published with the rule.’’ 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day
waiting period prescribed in APA
section 553(d)(3) is to give affected
parties a reasonable time to adjust their
behavior and prepare before the final
rule takes effect. This rule does not
create any new regulatory requirements
such that affected parties would need
time to prepare before the rule takes
effect. This action merely corrects
inaccurate amendatory instructions in a
previous rulemaking. For these reasons,
the EPA finds good cause under APA
section 553(d)(3) for these corrections to
become effective on the date of
publication of this action.
This action is subject to the
Congressional Review Act (CRA), and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 808 allows the issuing
agency to make a rule effective sooner
than otherwise provided by the CRA if
the agency makes a good cause finding
that notice and public procedure is
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest. This
determination must be supported by a
brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As
stated previously, the EPA has made
such a good cause finding, including the
reasons therefore, for this action to
become effective on the date of
publication. This action is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Jun 10, 2025
Jkt 265001
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: May 23, 2025.
Joshua F. W. Cook,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Accordingly, 40 CFR part 52 is
corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D—Arizona
[Amended]
2. In § 52.119, remove and reserve
paragraph (c).
■
3. In § 52.124, add paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
■
Part D disapproval.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The following Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT)
determinations are disapproved because
they do not meet the requirements of
Part D of the Clean Air Act.
(1) [Reserved].
(2) Maricopa County Air Quality
Department.
(i) [Reserved].
(ii) The RACT demonstration titled
‘‘Analysis of Reasonably Available
Control Technology for the 2008 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) State
Implementation Plan (RACT SIP),’’ only
those portions of the document
beginning with ‘‘Gasoline Tank Trucks
And Vapor Collection System Leaks’’ on
page 34 through the first full paragraph
on page 35, and Appendix C: CTG
RACT Spreadsheet, the rows beginning
with ‘‘Gasoline Tank Trucks And Vapor
Collection System Leaks’’ on page 65,
through ‘‘Service Stations—Stage I’’ on
pages 67–69. This demonstration
represents the RACT requirement for the
following source categories: Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from
Gasoline Tank Trucks and Vapor
Collection Systems (EPA–450/2–78–
051) and Design Criteria for Stage I
Vapor Control Systems—Gasoline
Service Stations (EPA–450/R–75–102).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2025–10541 Filed 6–10–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40 CFR Parts 271 and 272
[EPA–R08–RCRA–2024–0408; FRL–12226–
04–R8]
Utah: Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions and Incorporation
by Reference
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final authorization.
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
§ 52.124
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
AGENCY:
■
§ 52.119
24515
The Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended, commonly referred to as
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), allows the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to authorize States to operate their
hazardous waste management programs
in lieu of the Federal program. Utah has
applied to EPA for final authorization of
the changes to its hazardous waste
program under RCRA. The EPA has
determined that these changes satisfy all
requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization and is authorizing Utah’s
changes through this final action.
Additionally, the EPA will finalize the
codification and incorporation by
reference of the State’s authorized
hazardous waste program.
DATES: This final authorization is
effective on June 11, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Moye Lin, Land, Chemicals and
Redevelopment Division, EPA Region 8,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129; telephone number: (303)
312–6667, email address: lin.moye@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
A. Why are revisions to State programs
necessary?
States that have received final
authorization from the 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 the 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 the EPA’s
regulations in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260
through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
Utah initially received final
authorization on October 10, 1984,
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
24516
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 11, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
effective October 24, 1984 (49 FR
39683), to implement the RCRA
hazardous waste management program.
Utah received authorization for
revisions to its program on February 21,
1989 (54 FR 7417), effective March 7,
1989; May 23, 1991 (56 FR 23648) and
August 6, 1991 (56 FR 37291), both
effective July 22, 1991; May 15, 1992 (57
FR 20770), effective July 14, 1992;
February 12, 1993 (58 FR 8232) and May
5, 1993 (58 FR 26689), both effective
April 13, 1993; October 14, 1994 (59 FR
52084), effective December 13, 1994;
May 20, 1997 (62 FR 27501), effective
July 21, 1997; January 13, 1999 (64 FR
02144), effective March 15, 1999;
October 16, 2000 (65 FR 61109),
effective January 16, 2001; May 7, 2002
(67 FR 30599), effective July 7, 2002;
June 11, 2003 (68 FR 34829), effective
June 11, 2003; and May 23, 2008,
effective May 23, 2008 (73 FR 29987).
On April 13, 2023, the State of Utah
submitted a final complete program
revision application seeking
authorization of their changes in
accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. On
December 23, 2024, the EPA published
both a direct final rule (89 FR 104435)
granting Utah final authorization for
these revisions to its federally
authorized hazardous waste program
and the codification and incorporation
by reference of the State’s authorized
hazardous waste program, along with a
companion proposed rule announcing
the EPA’s proposal to grant such final
authorization, codification, and
incorporation by reference (89 FR
104486). The EPA announced in both
documents that the direct final rule and
the proposed rule were subject to a
thirty-day public comment period. The
public comment period ended on
January 22, 2025. Further, the EPA
stated in both documents that if it
received adverse comments on its intent
to authorize Utah’s program revisions
that it would (1) withdraw the direct
final rule; (2) proceed with the proposed
rule as the basis for the receipt and
evaluation of such comments; and (3)
subsequently publish a final
determination responding to such
comments and announce it final
decision as to whether to authorize
Utah’s program revisions, codification,
and incorporation by reference. The
EPA did receive two adverse comments
during the public comment period, and
on February 20, 2025, the EPA
published a document withdrawing the
direct final rule (90 FR 9954).
This action responds to the comments
the EPA received and publishes the
EPA’s final determination granting Utah
final authorization of its program
revisions and the incorporation by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Jun 10, 2025
Jkt 265001
reference of the authorized program.
Further background on the EPA’s direct
final rule and its tentative determination
to grant authorization to Utah for its
program revisions appears in the
aforementioned Federal Register
documents. The issues raised by the
commenters are summarized and
responded to in section B. below.
B. What were the comments and
responses to the EPA’s proposal?
During the public comment period,
adverse comments were received from
two sources. The comments did not
address specific concerns with the
EPA’s approval of the 41 additional
RCRA regulatory provisions in Utah’s
authorized hazardous waste program;
rather the comments were general in
nature: Opposition to Utah
administering hazardous waste and
allegations that Utah’s State government
is incompetent, has not cleaned the
State of air pollution, and created a
water crisis related to overdevelopment
and agricultural use. In response to the
first commenter who stated they are
‘‘worried that the EPA is allowing the
state of Utah to alter the hazardous
waste plan, because the history of the
state regarding the protection of the
people during the uranium years was
not good’’ the EPA notes that the
authorization of the additional RCRA
regulatory provisions as specified in the
direct final rule will not impact the way
Utah regulates hazardous waste. The
State has already adopted these
regulatory provisions into the Utah
Hazardous Waste Management Rules.
Additionally, the EPA notes that, in
general, this authorization does not
address radioactive waste.
In response to the second commenter
who expressed concerns that the State
of Utah should not be entrusted to
administer hazardous waste,
commenting that instead, ‘‘the EPA
should be fully budgeted and staffed to
manage the program,’’ claiming the Utah
State government is incompetent due to
other perceived environmental failures.
The State of Utah initially received
delegation of the RCRA program in
1984, with many subsequent
authorizations of Federal final rules in
the years since. The Utah Department of
Environmental Quality (UDEQ) has
followed the process specified in 40
CFR part 271 for submitting an
application for authorization to the EPA
and the EPA has conducted a thorough
review of both the application for
authorization and the State’s hazardous
waste program as a whole. Neither
review revealed a basis for revoking the
status of the delegation of the RCRA
hazardous waste program for Utah.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Therefore, we have determined that
these comments do not provide a basis
to deny authorization and codification
of Utah’s hazardous waste program.
C. What decisions have we made in this
final action?
Based on the EPA’s response to public
comments, we have determined that
approval and codification of Utah’s
RCRA program revisions should
proceed. The EPA has made a final
determination that Utah’s application to
revise its authorized program meets all
of the statutory and regulatory
requirements established by RCRA;
therefore, we grant Utah final
authorization to operate its hazardous
waste program with the changes
described in the authorization
application. Additionally, the State’s
program is approved for codification
and incorporation by reference under 40
CFR part 272. Utah has responsibility
for permitting Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its
borders, except in Indian country as that
term is defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151, and
for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA
program described in its program
application, subject to the limitations of
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New
Federal requirements and prohibitions
imposed by Federal regulations that the
EPA promulgates under the authority of
HSWA take effect in authorized States
before they are authorized for the
requirements; thus, the EPA will
implement those requirements and
prohibitions in Utah, including issuing
permits, until Utah is authorized to do
so. For further background on the scope
and effect of this action to approve
Utah’s RCRA program and codify and
incorporate by reference the authorized
hazardous waste program, please refer
to the preambles of the EPA’s December
23, 2024, proposed and direct final rules
at 89 FR 104486 and 89 FR 104435,
respectively.
D. Administrative Requirements
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has exempted this action from
the requirements of Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011); therefore, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR
9065, February 6, 2025) because State
hazardous waste program authorization
revisions under Subtitle C of RCRA
actions are exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866. For these
reasons, this action is not subject to
review by OMB. This action authorizes
and codifies State requirements for the
purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 11, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. Accordingly, I
certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action
authorizes and codifies pre-existing
requirements under State law and does
not impose any additional enforceable
duty beyond that required by State law,
it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). For the same
reason, this action also does not
significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Tribal governments, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely authorizes and codifies 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 3006(b), the 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 the
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, Feb. 7, 1996), in issuing this
action, the EPA has taken the necessary
steps to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:49 Jun 10, 2025
Jkt 265001
affected conduct. The 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.).
The Congressional Review Act (CRA),
5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this
document and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication in the
Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action will be
effective June 11, 2025.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Part 272
Environmental protection, Hazardous
materials transportation, Hazardous
waste, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Authority: This action is issued under the
authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and
7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Dated: May 19, 2025.
Cyrus M. Western,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2025–10031 Filed 6–10–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
24517
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 1090
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2024–0143; FRL–8513–03–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AV26
Fuels Regulatory Streamlining
Sampling and Testing Updates;
Correction
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is correcting a final rule
that appeared in the Federal Register on
January 15, 2025. The final rule made
revisions, updates, and corrections to
EPA’s streamlined fuel quality
regulations. This document corrects an
error in the regulatory text in the final
rule, but does not make any substantive
changes.
DATES: This correction is effective on
July 1, 2025.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2024–0143. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material is not available
on the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick
Parsons, Office of Transportation and
Air Quality, Assessment and Standards
Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:
734–214–4479; email address:
parsons.nick@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is
correcting an inadvertent error in the
regulatory text for the final rule.
Equation 1 to 40 CFR 1090.1355(a)
should read as follows: RVP = 0.956
• Ptotal ¥0.347.
Section 553(b)(B) of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an
agency for good cause finds that public
notice and comment procedures are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may
issue a rule without providing notice
and an opportunity for public comment.
EPA has determined that there is good
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 11, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24515-24517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-10031]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 271 and 272
[EPA-R08-RCRA-2024-0408; FRL-12226-04-R8]
Utah: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions and Incorporation by Reference
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, commonly referred to
as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), allows the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize States to operate
their hazardous waste management programs in lieu of the Federal
program. Utah has applied to EPA for final authorization of the changes
to its hazardous waste program under RCRA. The EPA has determined that
these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization and is authorizing Utah's changes through this final
action. Additionally, the EPA will finalize the codification and
incorporation by reference of the State's authorized hazardous waste
program.
DATES: This final authorization is effective on June 11, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Moye Lin, Land, Chemicals and
Redevelopment Division, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129; telephone number: (303) 312-6667, email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Why are revisions to State programs necessary?
States that have received final authorization from the 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 the 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 the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
Utah initially received final authorization on October 10, 1984,
[[Page 24516]]
effective October 24, 1984 (49 FR 39683), to implement the RCRA
hazardous waste management program. Utah received authorization for
revisions to its program on February 21, 1989 (54 FR 7417), effective
March 7, 1989; May 23, 1991 (56 FR 23648) and August 6, 1991 (56 FR
37291), both effective July 22, 1991; May 15, 1992 (57 FR 20770),
effective July 14, 1992; February 12, 1993 (58 FR 8232) and May 5, 1993
(58 FR 26689), both effective April 13, 1993; October 14, 1994 (59 FR
52084), effective December 13, 1994; May 20, 1997 (62 FR 27501),
effective July 21, 1997; January 13, 1999 (64 FR 02144), effective
March 15, 1999; October 16, 2000 (65 FR 61109), effective January 16,
2001; May 7, 2002 (67 FR 30599), effective July 7, 2002; June 11, 2003
(68 FR 34829), effective June 11, 2003; and May 23, 2008, effective May
23, 2008 (73 FR 29987).
On April 13, 2023, the State of Utah submitted a final complete
program revision application seeking authorization of their changes in
accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. On December 23, 2024, the EPA published
both a direct final rule (89 FR 104435) granting Utah final
authorization for these revisions to its federally authorized hazardous
waste program and the codification and incorporation by reference of
the State's authorized hazardous waste program, along with a companion
proposed rule announcing the EPA's proposal to grant such final
authorization, codification, and incorporation by reference (89 FR
104486). The EPA announced in both documents that the direct final rule
and the proposed rule were subject to a thirty-day public comment
period. The public comment period ended on January 22, 2025. Further,
the EPA stated in both documents that if it received adverse comments
on its intent to authorize Utah's program revisions that it would (1)
withdraw the direct final rule; (2) proceed with the proposed rule as
the basis for the receipt and evaluation of such comments; and (3)
subsequently publish a final determination responding to such comments
and announce it final decision as to whether to authorize Utah's
program revisions, codification, and incorporation by reference. The
EPA did receive two adverse comments during the public comment period,
and on February 20, 2025, the EPA published a document withdrawing the
direct final rule (90 FR 9954).
This action responds to the comments the EPA received and publishes
the EPA's final determination granting Utah final authorization of its
program revisions and the incorporation by reference of the authorized
program. Further background on the EPA's direct final rule and its
tentative determination to grant authorization to Utah for its program
revisions appears in the aforementioned Federal Register documents. The
issues raised by the commenters are summarized and responded to in
section B. below.
B. What were the comments and responses to the EPA's proposal?
During the public comment period, adverse comments were received
from two sources. The comments did not address specific concerns with
the EPA's approval of the 41 additional RCRA regulatory provisions in
Utah's authorized hazardous waste program; rather the comments were
general in nature: Opposition to Utah administering hazardous waste and
allegations that Utah's State government is incompetent, has not
cleaned the State of air pollution, and created a water crisis related
to overdevelopment and agricultural use. In response to the first
commenter who stated they are ``worried that the EPA is allowing the
state of Utah to alter the hazardous waste plan, because the history of
the state regarding the protection of the people during the uranium
years was not good'' the EPA notes that the authorization of the
additional RCRA regulatory provisions as specified in the direct final
rule will not impact the way Utah regulates hazardous waste. The State
has already adopted these regulatory provisions into the Utah Hazardous
Waste Management Rules. Additionally, the EPA notes that, in general,
this authorization does not address radioactive waste.
In response to the second commenter who expressed concerns that the
State of Utah should not be entrusted to administer hazardous waste,
commenting that instead, ``the EPA should be fully budgeted and staffed
to manage the program,'' claiming the Utah State government is
incompetent due to other perceived environmental failures. The State of
Utah initially received delegation of the RCRA program in 1984, with
many subsequent authorizations of Federal final rules in the years
since. The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) has followed
the process specified in 40 CFR part 271 for submitting an application
for authorization to the EPA and the EPA has conducted a thorough
review of both the application for authorization and the State's
hazardous waste program as a whole. Neither review revealed a basis for
revoking the status of the delegation of the RCRA hazardous waste
program for Utah.
Therefore, we have determined that these comments do not provide a
basis to deny authorization and codification of Utah's hazardous waste
program.
C. What decisions have we made in this final action?
Based on the EPA's response to public comments, we have determined
that approval and codification of Utah's RCRA program revisions should
proceed. The EPA has made a final determination that Utah's application
to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and
regulatory requirements established by RCRA; therefore, we grant Utah
final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the
changes described in the authorization application. Additionally, the
State's program is approved for codification and incorporation by
reference under 40 CFR part 272. Utah has responsibility for permitting
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders,
except in Indian country as that term is defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151, and
for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its
program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and
Solid Waste amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and
prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates
under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before
they are authorized for the requirements; thus, the EPA will implement
those requirements and prohibitions in Utah, including issuing permits,
until Utah is authorized to do so. For further background on the scope
and effect of this action to approve Utah's RCRA program and codify and
incorporate by reference the authorized hazardous waste program, please
refer to the preambles of the EPA's December 23, 2024, proposed and
direct final rules at 89 FR 104486 and 89 FR 104435, respectively.
D. Administrative Requirements
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action
from the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October
4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); therefore, this
action is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6,
2025) because State hazardous waste program authorization revisions
under Subtitle C of RCRA actions are exempt from review under Executive
Order 12866. For these reasons, this action is not subject to review by
OMB. This action authorizes and codifies State requirements for the
purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no
[[Page 24517]]
additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly,
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action authorizes
and codifies pre-existing requirements under State law and does not
impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State
law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this
action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities
of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely authorizes and codifies 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 3006(b), the 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 the 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, Feb. 7, 1996), in
issuing this action, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The 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.).
The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing
this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the
U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication in the Federal Register. A major
rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2). This action will be effective June 11, 2025.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 272
Environmental protection, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Water pollution control, Water supply.
Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections
2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Dated: May 19, 2025.
Cyrus M. Western,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2025-10031 Filed 6-10-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
