### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 129/Tuesday, July 7, 1998/Rules and Regulations

(G)Petitions forJudicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by September 8, 1998. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality ofthisrule forpurposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which apetition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness ofsuch rule

or action. This action may notbe challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)). 

### VI. List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen oxides, Implementation plans.

Dated: June 25, 1998. William E Muno, ActingRegional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter 1,title40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART52-[AMENDED]

1.The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42U.S.C. 7401 et.seq. Subpart KK-Ohio

2. Section 52.1885 is amended by addingparagraph (a)(8) to read as follows:
§52.1885 Control Strategy: Ozone

(a) * * * (8) Approval-On April 27, 1998, Ohio submitted arevision to remove the air quality triggers from the ozone maintenance plans for the following

areas in Ohio: Canton (StarkCounty), Cleveland (Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake, Ashtabula, Geauga, Medina, Summit and Portage Counties), Columbus (Franklin, Delaware and Licking Counties), Steubenville (Jefferson County), Toledo (Lucas and Wood Counties), Youngstown (Mahoning and Trumbull Counties) as well as Clinton County, Columbiana County, and Preble County. [FRDoc. 98 17972 Filed 7 6 98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271 [FRL-6119-9] Washington: Final Authorizationof State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: Washington has applied for Final authorization ofa revision to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPAhas reviewed Washington's application and determined that its hazardous waste program revision satisfies all ofthe requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Unless adverse written comments are received during the review and comment period provided in this direct final rule,EPA's decision to approve Washington's hazardous waste program revision will take effect as provided below. Washington's application for program revision is available for public review and comment. DATES: This Final authorization for Washington shall be effective October 5, 1998, if EPAreceives no adverse
comment on this document by August 6, 1998. Should EPAreceive adverse comments, EPA will withdraw this rule before the effective date by publishing a notice ofwithdrawal in the Federal Register. Any comments on Washington's program revision application must be filed by August 6, 1998. Written comments may also be provided to the address below by August 6, 1998. Ifno adverse comments

arereceived byAugust 6, 1998, the immediate final rule will take effect and

no further action will be taken on the companion proposal, which appears in the proposed rules section elsewhere in this issue ofthe Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Copies ofthe Washington program revision application and the materials which EPA used in evaluating the revision are available for inspection and copying during normal business hours atthe following addresses: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, contact at (206) 553- 1259; and the Washington Department ofEcology, 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 98503, contact Patricia Hervieux, (360) 407-6756. Written comments should be sent to Nina Kocourek, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, WCM-122, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553- 6502. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nina Kocourek, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, WCM-122, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-6502. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background
States with final authorization under section 3006(b) ofthe RCRA 42 U.S.C. 6926(b),have acontinuing obligation to maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program.

Revisions to Statehazardous waste programs are necessary when Federal or State statutory orregulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes

occur.Most commonly, Stateprogram revisions are necessitated by changes to EPA's regulations in Title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR)parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

The revision requested by Washington in its current application is not aresult ofa change to EPA's rules or regulations, nor is it a result ofchanges
to Washington's rules and regulations. Washington's application forrevision results from unique agreements between Washington, the United States and the Puyallup Tribe ofIndians. Washington seeks revision ofits authorized program to include "non-trust lands" within the exterior boundaries ofthe Puyallup Indian reservation (hereafterreferred to

as the "1873 Survey Area" or "Survey Area")pursuant to a settlement agreement finalized in 1988 and ratified by Congress in 1989, which allows Washington to seek authorization for such lands after consultation and communication with the Puyallup Tribe.

B. Washington

The State ofWashington initially received Final Authorization on January 30, 1986 (51 FR 3782), effective January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3782), to implement its base hazardous waste management program. Washington received authorization for revisions to its program on November 23, 1987 (52 FR 35556, 9/22/87), October 16, 1990 (55 FR 33695, 8/17/90), November 4, 1994 (59 FR55322, 11/4/94), and April 29, 1996 (41 FR7736, 2/29/96)

On June 16, 1998, Washington submitted afinal complete program application to revise its program to include non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area ofthe Puyallup Tribe reservation. Today, Washington is 

## 36587

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 36587 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 129/Tuesday, July 7, 1998/Rules and Regulations

seeking approval ofits program revision in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21(b)(3).

The EPA reviewed Washington's application, and now makes an immediate final decision, subject to receipt ofadverse written comment, that Washington's hazardous wasteprogram revision satisfies all ofthe requirements necessary to qualify for Final Authorization. Consequently, EPA intends to grant Final Authorization to Washington for therevision.

As provided in the Proposed Rules section oftoday's FR,thepublic may submit written comments on EPA's proposed final decision until August 6, 1998. Copies ofWashington's application forprogram revision are available for inspection and copying at the locations indicated in the ADDRESSES section ofthis document.

IfEPA does notreceive adverse written comment on Washington's program revision by the end ofthe
comment period, the authorization of Washington's revision shall become effective 90 days from the date this document is published and EPA will take no further action on the companion document appearing in the Proposed Rules section oftoday's Federal Register. Ifthe Agency does receive adverse written comment, it will publish a notice withdrawing this immediate final rule before its effective date. EPA then will address the
comments in alater final rule based on the companion document appearing in the Proposed Rules section oftoday's Federal Register. EPAmay not provide additional opportunity for comment. Any parties interested in commenting should do so in accordance with the time frame provided in today's Federal Register.
1. State'sRevisionRequest

The State ofWashington applied to the EPA to revise its authorized hazardous waste program to include "non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area ofthe Puyallup Reservation," as defined in the Washington Indian (Puyallup)Land Claims Settlement, 25 U.S.C. 1773 etseq., also cited as the Puyallup Tribe ofIndians Settlement Act (hereafter "Settlement Act"), aspart ofthe State's authorized program. The Settlement Act allocates jurisdiction accordingto an "Agreement between the Puyallup Tribe ofIndians, local Governments in Pierce County, the State ofWashington, the United States of America, and certain private property owners," (August 27, 1988), hereafter referred to as the "Settlement Agreement." See25 U.S.C. 1773-1773j. Relying on the Congressional ratification provided in the agreement, the State ofWashington is seeking authorization to include non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area as part of its authorized program. The State of Washington is not requesting authorization for any new federal rules with this program revision.

2. AnalysisofState Submissionon Revision ofProgram

In support ofits original interim base program application, Washington asserted it hadjurisdiction generally

over all lands within state borders. However for the limited purpose of supporting its request for this revision, the State relied solely on the Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. 1773 etseq., as the basis for its assertion ofjurisdiction over nontrust lands within the 1873 Survey Area.

The Settlement Act ratified and confirmed the 1988 Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Act, the "Tribe shall retain and exercise jurisdiction, and the United States and the State and political subdivisions thereof shall retain and exercise jurisdiction, as provided in the Settlement Agreement and Technical Documents and, where not provided therein, as otherwise provided by Federal law." 25 U.S.C. 1773g.The Settlement Agreement provides, for the purposes ofthe Agreement, that "the federal, state and local governments have exclusivejurisdiction for the administration and implementation of federal, state and local environmental laws on non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area." Settlement Agreement, Section VIII(A)(3).

The Settlement Agreement defines the 1873 Survey area as the "area which is within the area demarked by the high
water line asmeandered and theupland boundaries, as shown on the plat map ofthe 1873 Survey ofthe Puyallup Indian Reservation conducted bythe United States General Land Office and filed in 1874." 25 U.S.C. 1773j(1). "Trust lands" are defined in the Settlement Agreement to include both "trust land" or "land in trust status," meaning "land or any interest in land the title to which isheld in trustby the United States for an individual Indian

or Tribe," aswell as "restricted land" or "land in restricted status," meaning "land the title to which is held by an individual Indian or Tribe and which

can be alienated or encumbered by the

owner only with the approval ofthe Secretary ofthe Interior." Settlement Agreement, Section VIII(A). "Non-trust lands" exclude those lands defined as "trust lands" under the Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, "any federal delegation 

### under the federal environmental laws within the 1873 Survey Area for nontrustlands willbe solely tothe State of Washington orits political subdivisions, and any federal delegation under the federal environmental laws within the 1873 Survey Areafor trustlands will be solelyto theTribe." Settlement Agreement, Section VIII(A)(3). All parties tothe Settlement Agreement

concur thattheterm "delegation" was intended to encompass "authorization"

as well as "delegation" offederal programs.

Washington's application to extend its authorized program tothe non-trust lands within the Survey Area, like its predecessor baseprogram application, attempts toreach into Indian country without limitingthatreach to nonIndians.Washington relies on the Settlement Actwhich ratifies the Settlement Agreement, a document which itselfis silent on theissue of jurisdiction over Indians in Indian country on non-trust lands in the Survey Area. In analyzing Washington's application, EPA's startingplaceis the Settlement Agreement.

The EPAbelieves thelanguage in the Settlement Agreement with respect to theretention ofFederaljurisdiction and thedeference given to Federal law in the absence ofother controlling law is significantto clarifying the authorization EPA isgranting to Washington. Neitherthe EPAnor the Puyallup Tribe ofIndians believes the Settlement Agreement changed operative federal law or superseded relevant case law on theissue of authority over Indians orIndian activities. In WashingtonDepartmentof Ecologyv. EPA, 752F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1985), the Ninth Circuit held that states generally were precluded from exercisingjurisdiction overIndians in Indian country unless Congress clearly expressed an intention topermit such jurisdiction. BothEPA and thePuyallup Tribe ofIndians believe the caseis relevant tothe issues ofstate jurisdiction related to this authorization.

In thatcase, theCourtheld that "EPA reasonably interpreted RCRA not to grant statejurisdiction over the activities ofIndians in Indian country." Id. at 1469. The Courtfound this conclusion tobewell grounded in federal Indian law and went on to say: "States aregenerally precluded from exercisingjurisdiction overIndians in Indian country unless Congress has clearly expressed an intention topermit it." Id.Moreover, "the United States in itsrole asprimary guarantor ofIndian interests legitimately may decide that * * * tribalconcerns can bestbe addressed by maintaining federal 

## 36588

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 36588 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 129/Tuesday, July 7, 1998/Rules and Regulations

control over Indian lands. EPA's interpretation ofRCRA permits this option." Id. at 1470. The Court expressly did not decide "the question ofwhether Washington is empowered to create a program reaching into Indian country when that reach is limited to non-Indians." Id. at 1467. Washington's proposed program, which was the basis ofthe lawsuit, clearly attempted to reach Indians in Indian country. Id.

The Settlement Agreement provides for federal environmental laws within the 1873 Survey Area on non-trust lands
to be delegated solely to the State of Washington or its political subdivisions. Settlement Agreement Section VIII.A.3. In carrying out delegated authority, the State and Tribe agree to involve each other in a consultative manner.Id. The Settlement Agreement also provides that "the State and its political subdivisions will retain and exercise alljurisdiction and governmental authority over all
non-trust lands and the activities conducted thereon and asprovided in federal law over non-Indians." Settlement at Section VIII.A.4. Based on the language ofthe Settlement Agreement as itwas ratified by Congress in the Settlement Act, EPAbelieves that Washington can be authorized for the RCRA program overthe non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area with limitations.

EPA finds the Settlement Act is not a clear expression ofcongressional intent
to permit the state to exercise jurisdiction overIndians or Indian activities on non-trust lands in the Survey Area. The Settlement Actratifies the Settlement Agreement, including its provisions for retaining federal jurisdiction, and does not change applicable case law and federal Indian law concerning Statejurisdiction over Indians and Indian activities. See Settlement Agreement at Section VIII.A.3 and 4. Without a clear expression ofintent in the Settlement Agreement as ratified by the Settlement Act to conferjurisdiction on the State

over Indians or Indian activities within the 1873 Survey Area, EPA finds that Washington has not adequately demonstrated jurisdiction over Indians

or Indian activities within the 1873 Survey Area. The authorization will therefore be limited to non-trust lands within the Survey Area and will not extend to Indians or Indian activities on those non-trust lands. EPA will retain jurisdiction overtrust lands and over Indians and Indian activities on nontrust lands within the Survey Area. EPA believes this is consistent with the language and intent ofboth the Settlement Act and Settlement Agreement and is otherwise consistent with federal Indian law.

A final issue to be addressed in today's rule is the State ofWashington's Regulatory Reform Act of 1995 ("Act"). By letters dated June 10, 1997 and November 20, 1997, EPA expressed its beliefthat the State's Act conflicted with the necessary enforcement authority required for authorization of federal environmental programs to the State. The Act provided that ifa conflict existed between the Act and federal program delegation requirements, conflicting provisions could be rendered inoperative upon notice to the Governor. The Attorney General for the State ofWashington acknowledged that the Act precluded the State from assessing a civil penalty except where a violation either was ofa specific permit
term or condition, was a repeat violation, was a violation for which the violator did not come into compliance within a specified period oftime, orhad

aprobability ofplacing a person in danger ofdeath or bodily harm, causing

more than minorenvironmental harm,

or causing physical damage to the property ofanother in excess ofone thousand dollars. Subsequently, on December 10, 1997, in accordance with State law, RCW 43.05.902, the State formally notified the Governor of Washington that a conflict existed with the Act and certain federal laws and programs. As aresult ofthe determination ofan existing conflict, sections 605, 606, 607(3) and 608 ofthe Act (prohibitingthe State from issuing civil penalties) were deemed to be inoperative to several State programs including the Hazardous Waste Program. In reliance on this determination, EPAbelieves the conflict has been addressed byrendering inoperative those portions ofthe Act that conflicted with the State's authorized RCRA program and with this revision request. In addition, EPA is relying on the State's interpretation of anothertechnical assistance law, RCW 43.21A.085 and .087, finding that the law does not conflict with federal authorization requirements because it is

adiscretionary program, to conclude that the law does not impinge on the State's authority to administer federal environmental programs, including the RCRA program. EPA understands from the State's interpretation that technical assistance visits conducted by the State will not be conducted under the authority ofRCW 43.21A.085 and .087. 

### C.Decision

EPA hasreviewed Washington's application and has made adecision that the State's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all ofthe requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. EPA has determined that the State ofWashington has submitted a sufficient analysis to support its assertion ofauthority over the non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area ofthe Puyallup Reservation, as defined in the Settlement Act, except over Indians or Indian activities. Consequently, EPA intends to grant final authorization revising Washington's hazardous waste program to include the non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area ofthe Puyallup Reservation but limitingthe authorization so that the revised program does not extend to Indians or Indian activities within the Survey Area.

Washington will implement the revised authorized program in the same

mannerthat theprogram is implemented elsewhere in the State. Thisincludes all aspects ofthe authorized program such aswaste designation requirements; generator, transporter, and recyclingrequirements; treatment, storage and disposal (TSD) facility requirements; allpermitting procedures; corrective action requirements; and compliance monitoring, and enforcement procedures.

All permits issued byU.S. EPA Region 10 on non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area prior to final authorization ofthis revision will continue to be administered byU.S. EPA Region 10until the issuance or reissuance after modification ofa State RCRA permit. Upon the effective date of the issuance, orreissuance after modification to incorporate authorized Staterequirements, ofa StateRCRA permit, those EPA-issued permit provisions which the State is authorized
to administer and enforce will expire. HSWAprovisions for which the State is
not authorized will continue in effect under the EPA-issued permit. EPA will continue to implement and enforce HSWAprovisions for which the state is
not authorized.

I conclude that Washington's application for a program revision meets all ofthe statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Accordingly, Washington is granted Final Authorization to operate its hazardous waste program as revised. Washington now has responsibility for carrying out the aspects ofthe RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations ofthe HSWA and excluding from its revised program authority over Indians or Indian activities within the 1873 Survey Area. Washington also has 

## 36589

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 36589 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 129/Tuesday, July 7, 1998/Rules and Regulations

primary enforcement responsibilities for the non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area except over Indians and Indian activities within the 1873 Survey Area. EPA will retainjurisdiction over trust lands and overIndians and Indian activities on non-trust lands within the Survey Area. EPAretains the right to conduct inspections under section 3007 ofRCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927, and to take enforcement actions under sections 3008, 3013 and 7003 ofRCRA, 42U.S.C. 6928, 6934 and 6973.

D. Codification in Part 272

The EPA uses 40CFRpart 272 for codification ofthe decision to authorize Washington's program and for incorporation by reference ofthose provisions ofthe State's authorized
statutes and regulations EPA will enforce under sections 3008, 3013 and 7003 ofRCRA. Therefore, EPA is reserving amendment of40 CFR part 272, subpartWW, until a later date. UnfundedMandatesReform Act

Title II ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of certain regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare

awritten statement ofeconomic and regulatory alternatives analyses for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates, as defined by the UMRA, that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate or to the private sector of$100 million or more in any one year. The section 202 and 205 requirements do
not apply to today's action because this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in annual expenditures of$100 million or more for State, local and/ortribal governments in the aggregate, or theprivate sector. Further,

as it applies to the State, this action does not impose a Federal intergovernmental mandate because UMRA does not include duties arising from participation in a voluntary federal program. Today's rule effects an administrative change by authorizing the State to implement its hazardous
waste program in lieu oftheFederal RCRA program for the non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area except

over Indians and Indian activities within the 1873 Survey Area. To the
extent that the State'shazardous waste program is more stringent than the Federal program, any new requirements imposed on the regulated community apply by virtue ofstate law; notbecause ofany new Federal requirement imposed pursuant to today's rule.

The requirements ofsection 203 of UMRA also do not apply to today's action. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, section 203 ofthe UMRA requires EPA to develop a small government agency plan. This rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. CertificationUndertheRegulatory FlexibilityAct

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, etseq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish anotice ofproposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute, it mustprepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect ofthe rule on small entities (i.e., smallbusinesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). This analysis is not required, however, ifthe agency's administrator certifies that therule will not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number ofsmall entities.

The EPAhas determined thatthis rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Today's rule does not impose any federal requirements on regulated entities, whether large or small. Instead, today's rule effects an administrative change by authorizingthe State to implement its hazardous waste program in lieu ofthe Federal RCRA program for the non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area except over Indians and Indian activities within the 1873 Survey Area. Today's rule carries out Congress' intent under both RCRA and the Settlement Actthat states should be authorized to implement their own hazardous waste programs aslong as those programs are equivalent to, and no less stringent than, the Federal hazardous waste program. In this case, to the extent that the State's hazardous
waste program is more stringent than the Federal program, any new requirements imposed on the regulated community apply by virtue ofstate law;
not because ofany new Federal requirement imposed pursuant to today's rule.

Pursuant to the provision at 5 U.S.C. 605(b),the Agency hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Submissionto Congressandthe ComptrollerGeneral

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit arule report which includes a copy ofthe rule to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. The EPA will submit areport containing this rule and otherrequired information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in today's Federal Register. This rule is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). ComplianceWith Executive Order 12866

The Office ofManagement and Budget has exempted this rule from the requirements ofsection 6 ofExecutive Order 12866. ComplianceWith Executive Order 12875

Executive Order 12875 restricts, to the
extentfeasible and permitted by law, the promulgation ofany regulation that is not required by statute and that
creates a mandate upon a state, local or Tribal government, subject to criteria provided in the order. Today's rule does
notimpose a mandate upon a State, local or Tribal government. Today'srule effects an administrative change by authorizing the State to implement its hazardous waste program in lieu ofthe Federal RCRA program forthe non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area except over Indians and Indian activities within the Area. As such, the final rule is not subject to the requirements ofExecutive Order 12875. ComplianceWith Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that the Office ofManagement and Budget determines is "economically significant," as defined under Executive Order 12866, and where EPA determines the environmental health or safety risk addressed bythe rule has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is 

## 36590

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 36590 1998

### Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 129/Tuesday, July 7, 1998/Rules and Regulations

preferable to otherpotentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

The Agency has determined thatthe final rule is not acovered regulatory action as defined in the Executive Order because it is not economically significantand is not ahealth or safety risk-based determination. Today's rule effects an administrative change by authorizingthe State to implement its hazardous waste program in lieu ofthe Federal RCRA program for the non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area except over Indians and Indian activitieswithin the 1873 Survey Area. As such, the final rule is not subject to the requirements ofExecutive Order 13045. PaperworkReductionAct

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, etseq., Federal agencies must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information request contained in aproposed rule or afinal rule. This rule will not impose any information requirements upon the regulated community.

NationalTechnology Transferand 

### AdvancementAct

Section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Pub. L. 104- 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs EPA to usevoluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, samplingprocedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to useavailable and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This action does not involvetechnical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary standards.

Listof Subjects in 40 CFR Part271

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply.

Authority:This notice is issued underthe authority ofsections 2002(a),3006 and 7004(b) ofthe Solid Waste DisposalAct, as amended, 42U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

Dated: June 24, 1998. Chuck Clarke, RegionalAdministrator. [FR Doc. 98 17682 Filed 7 6 98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0, 1,2, 5, 15, 18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 73, 74, 78, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 [ET Docket No. 97-94; FCC 98-58]
Streamlining the Equipment Authorization Process
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission is amending its rules to simplifythe equipment authorization processes, deregulate the authorization requirements for certain types ofequipment, and begin implementation of an electronicfiling system for equipment authorization applications.These actionswill greatly reduce the complexity and burden of the Commission's equipment authorization requirements so that products can be introduced to the market more rapidly. We believe these actionswill greatly benefit both large and small manufacturers and encourage the development of innovative products that best meet consumers' needs. EFFECTIVE DATE: October5, 1998. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugh L. Van Tuyl, (202)418-7506 or Julius P. Knapp, (202) 418-2468, Office of Engineering and Technology. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary ofthe Commission's Order,ET Docket 97-94, FCC 98-58, adopted April 2, 1998, and released April 16, 1998. The full text ofthis Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, InternationalTranscription Service, (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036. Summary ofthe ReportandOrder
1.On March 13, 1997, the Commission adopted aNotice of ProposedRuleMaking(Notice)62 FR 24383, May 5, 1997, in the above captioned proceeding.TheNotice proposed to amend parts 2, 15, 18 and other rule parts to: (1) simplify our existing equipment authorization processes; (2) deregulate the equipment authorization requirements forcertain types ofequipment; and (3) provide for electronicfiling ofapplications for equipment authorization. The proposals
were designed to reduce the burden of the equipment authorization program on manufacturers.

2. We are adoptingmany ofthe proposed changes to simplifythe authorization process and relax the equipment authorization requirements for certain devices, as well as making the rule changes necessary to implement
an electronic filingsystem for applications. SimplificationofExistingEquipment AuthorizationProcesses 3. There are currently five different equipment authorization procedures specified in SubpartJofPart 2 ofthe Commission's Rules. The following is a briefdescription ofeach procedure:

Type acceptance calls for the manufactureror importer to submit a written application for review and approval by the Commission. The application must include acomplete technical description ofthe product and

atestreport showing compliance with the technical requirements. The type acceptanceprocedure has traditionally been applied to radio transmitters that

are used in authorized radio services, such as commercial and private mobile radio services.

Certification is similar to type acceptance. The manufacturer or importer must submit awritten application that includes atechnical description ofthe product and atest report showing compliance with the Commission's technical standards. Certification has traditionally been used for low power, unlicensed consumer devices thatoperate under Parts 15 and 18 ofthe rules.

Notification requires submittal of a written application, but no test report is required unless specifically requested by the Commission. Notification has been used for avariety of products that demonstrated agood record of compliance, but the Commission found it appropriate to maintain some degree ofoversight.

Declaration ofConformity (DoC) is a relatively new self-approval procedure thatwas established in connection with the Commission's deregulation ofthe certification requirements for personal computer equipment. The DoC procedure calls for the manufacturer or importer to test the equipment to determine compliance with the FCC standards. The laboratory performing 

## 36591

HeinOnline -- 63 Fed. Reg. 36591 1998