Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 64861

‘‘we,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean EPA. 

On October 27, 2004, (69 FR 62591), we 

published a final rulemaking action 

announcing approval of a determination 

of attainment and redesignation of the 

City of Weirton PM10 Nonattainment our 

Area (the Weirton area) to attainment 

and approval of the maintenance plan 

for the area. In the preamble of this 

document, we inadvertently omitted 

language explaining why PM10 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets, for purposes 

of transportation conformity, not 

required to be part of the maintenance 

plan for the area. Our intent was to 

explain that the ambient impact of PM10

emissions from onroad motor vehicles 

was not and is not significant as it has 

been and continues to be less than five 

percent of the total PM10 ambient 

concentrations in the area. Stationary 

(point) source emissions are responsible 

for the remaining impacts. The May 24, 

2004 submittal from West Virginia 

requesting redesignation and approval 

of the maintenance plan (which is in the 

docket for this final rule) includes a 

letter from EPA to the State of West 

Virginia, dated April 26, 1995. In that 

letter, EPA agreed that because the 

ambient impact of PM10 emissions from 

onroad motor vehicles was less than five 

percent of the total PM10 ambient 

concentrations in the area, the impact of 

PM10 emissions from onroad motor 

vehicles was not responsible for 

nonattainment. That letter also stated 

that for purposes of transportation 

conformity no additional quantitative 

analyses for transportation-related PM10

impacts were required for the area. The 

May 24, 2004 submittal from West 

Virginia also includes emission 

inventory data and information 

regarding the area’s declining 

population indicating a decrease in on 

road mobile emissions. 

Although the docket for this final rule 

includes documentation that the 

ambient impact of PM10 emissions from 

onroad motor vehicles did not and do 

not significantly contribute to the total 

PM10 ambient concentrations in the 

area, the preamble of published final 

rule itself did not provide this 

information. This action corrects that 

omission. In rule document 04–23945 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 27, 2004 (69 FR 62591), on page 

62594 in the second column, under 2. 

Maintenance Demonstration the revised 

preamble language is corrected to add a 

second paragraph to read—‘‘West 

Virginia’s May 24, 2004 submittal 

includes documentation that the 

ambient impact of PM10 emissions from 

onroad motor vehicles was not and is 

not significant as it has been and 

continues to be less than five percent of 

the total PM10 ambient concentrations in 

the area. Stationary (point) source 

emissions are responsible for the 

remaining impacts. The enforceable 

measures imposed by West Virginia to 

reduce emissions from these point 

sources are the basis of the Weirton area 

achieving the NAAQS for PM10. 

Therefore, no motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for transportation conformity 

purposes are required for the Weirton 

area’s maintenance plan.’’

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

As this action merely provides 

supplemental text to the preamble of the 

direct final rule published on October 

27, 2004, please refer to that direct final 

rule (69 FR 62591, 62595) for 

information regarding applicable 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule 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 of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This correction to 

rule document 04–23945 is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Dated: November 3, 2004. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.

[FR Doc. 04–24912 Filed 11–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–7835–9] 

Maine: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: The State of Maine has 

applied to EPA for Final authorization 

of changes to its hazardous waste 

program under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

EPA has determined that these changes 

satisfy all requirements needed to 

qualify for final authorization, and is 

authorizing the State’s changes through 

this immediate final action. EPA is 

publishing this rule to authorize the 

changes without a prior proposal 

because we believe this action is not 

controversial and do not expect adverse 

comments that oppose it. Unless we get 

written comments which oppose this 

authorization during the comment 

period, the decision to authorize 

Maine’s changes to their hazardous 

waste program will take effect. If we get 

comments that oppose this action, we 

will publish a document in the Federal 

Register withdrawing this rule before it 

takes effect and the separate document 

in the proposed rules section of this 

Federal Register will serve as a proposal 

to authorize the changes.

DATES: This Final authorization will 

become effective on January 10, 2005, 

unless EPA receives adverse written 

comment by December 9, 2004. If EPA 

receives such comment, it will publish 

a timely withdrawal of this immediate 

final rule in the Federal Register and 

inform the public that this authorization 

will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Dockets containing copies 

of the State of Maine’s revision 

application and the materials which the 

EPA used in evaluating the revision 

have been established at the following 

two locations: (i) EPA Region 1 Library, 

One Congress Street–11th Floor, Boston, 

MA 02114–2023; business hours 

Monday through Thursday 10 a.m.–3 

p.m., tel: (617) 918–1990; and (ii) Maine 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Hospital Street, Augusta, ME 

04333; business hours Monday through 

Thursday 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m., and 

Friday 8:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m., tel: (207) 

287–7843. Records in these dockets are 

available for inspection during normal 

business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon Leitch, Hazardous Waste Unit, 

EPA Region 1, One Congress Street, 

Suite 1100 (CHW), Boston, MA 02114–

2023; tel: (617) 918–1647, e-mail: 

leitch.sharon@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why Are Revisions to State 

Programs Necessary? 

States which have received final 

authorization from EPA under RCRA 

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must 

maintain a hazardous waste program 

that is equivalent to, consistent with, 

and no less stringent than the Federal 

program. As the Federal program 

changes, States must 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 

64862 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

modified or when certain other changes 

occur. Most commonly, States must 

change their programs because of 

changes to EPA’s regulations in 40 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 

260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279. 

B. What Decisions Have We Made in 

This Rule? 

We have concluded that Maine’s 

application to revise its authorized 

program meets all of the statutory and 

regulatory requirements established by 

RCRA. Therefore, we grant Maine Final 

authorization to operate its hazardous 

waste program with the changes 

described in the authorization 

application. Maine has responsibility for 

permitting Treatment, Storage, and 

Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) and for 

carrying out the aspects of the RCRA 

program described in its revised 

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 EPA promulgates under 

the authority of HSWA take effect in 

authorized States before they are 

authorized for the requirements. Thus, 

EPA will implement those requirements 

and prohibitions in Maine, including 

issuing permits, until the State is 

granted authorization to do so. 

C. What Is the Effect of Today’s 

Authorization Decision? 

The effect of this decision is that a 

facility in Maine subject to RCRA will 

now have to comply with the authorized 

State requirements instead of the 

equivalent Federal requirements in 

order to comply with RCRA. Maine has 

enforcement responsibilities under its 

State hazardous waste program for 

violations of such program, but EPA 

retains its full authority under RCRA 

sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, 

which includes, among others, authority 

to: 

• Perform inspections, and require 

monitoring, tests, analyses or reports.

• Enforce RCRA requirements and 

suspend or revoke permits. 

• Take enforcement actions. 

This action does not impose 

additional requirements on the 

regulated community because the 

regulations for which Maine is being 

authorized by today’s action are already 

effective under state law, and are not 

changed by today’s action. 

D. Why Wasn’t There a Proposed Rule 

Before Today’s Rule? 

EPA did not publish a proposal before 

today’s rule because we view this as a 

routine program change and do not 

expect adverse comments that oppose 

this approval. We are providing an 

opportunity for public comment now. In 

addition to this rule, in the proposed 

rules section of today’s Federal Register

we are publishing a separate document 

that proposes to authorize the State 

program changes. 

E. What Happens if EPA Receives 

Comments That Oppose This Action? 

If EPA receives comments that oppose 

this authorization, we will withdraw 

this rule by publishing a document in 

the Federal Register before the rule 

becomes effective. EPA will base any 

further decision on the authorization of 

the State program changes on the 

proposal mentioned in the previous 

paragraph. We will then address all 

public comments in a later final rule 

based upon this proposed rule that also 

appears in today’s Federal Register. You 

may not have another opportunity to 

comment. If you want to comment on 

this authorization, you should do so at 

this time. 

If we receive adverse comments that 

oppose only the authorization of a 

particular change to the State hazardous 

waste program, we will withdraw that 

part of this rule but the authorization of 

the program changes that the comments 

do not oppose will become effective on 

the date specified above. The Federal 

Register withdrawal document will 

specify which part of the authorization 

will become effective, and which part is 

being withdrawn. 

F. What Has Maine Previously Been 

Authorized for? 

The State of Maine initially received 

Final authorization on May 6, 1988, 

effective May 20, 1988 (53 FR 16264) to 

implement the RCRA hazardous waste 

management program. We granted 

authorization for changes to their 

program on June 24, 1997, effective 

August 25, 1997 (62 FR 34007). 

G. What Changes Are We Authorizing 

With Today’s Action? 

On September 27, 2004, Maine 

submitted a final complete program 

revision application, seeking 

authorization for their changes in 

accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. In 

particular, Maine is seeking 

authorization for the Universal Waste 

Rule and for the metals portion of the 

TCLP rule, the authorization of which is 

a prerequisite for authorization of the 

Universal Waste Rule. Maine is 

including batteries, mercury 

thermostats, lamps, CRTs, mercury 

devices, motor vehicle mercury 

switches, and PCB ballasts on their list 

of universal wastes. In general, the 

Universal Waste Rule establishes 

streamlined hazardous waste 

management regulations which are 

intended to encourage the recycling of 

certain widely generated wastes, such as 

batteries. 

We are now making an immediate 

final decision, subject to receipt of 

written comments that oppose this 

action, that Maine’s hazardous waste 

program revisions satisfy all of the 

requirements necessary to qualify for 

Final authorization. Therefore, we grant 

Maine Final authorization for the 

following program changes:

Description of Federal requirement and checklist reference number Analogous State authority 1

Consolidated Checklist for the Toxicity Characteristic Revisions as of June 30, 2001

(74) Toxicity Characteristic Revisions: 55 FR 11798, 3/29/90 as 

amended on 6/29/90, 55 FR 26986 (regarding metals other than 

chrome); 

850.3A(2); 850.3A(3)(a)(ii)(b); 850.3A(3)(c); 850.3A(3)(d); 

850.3A(4)(a)(xiv); 850.3B(5); 850.3B(5)(a) & (b); 850.3C Hazard 

Codes; 850, Appendix II; 852, Appendix I; 855.9G. 

(80) Hydrocarbon Recovery Operations: 55 FR 40834, 10/5/90 as 

amended on 2/1/91, 56 FR 3978, as amended on 4/2/91, 56 FR 

13406, optional rule (ME is not seeking authorization for this provision); 

(84) Chlorofluoro Refrigerants: 56 FR 5910, 2/13/91, optional rule (ME 

is not seeking authorization for this provision); 

(108) Toxicity Characteristics Revision; 57 FR 30657, 7/10/92 (ME is 

not seeking authorization for this provision); 

(117B) Toxicity Characteristic Revision: 57 FR 23062, 6/1/92 (regarding 

metals other than chrome); 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 64863

Description of Federal requirement and checklist reference number Analogous State authority 1

(119) Toxicity Characteristic Revision, TCLP: 57 FR 55114, 11/24/92 

optional rule; 

(126) Testing and Monitoring Activities: 58 FR 46040, 8/31/93 (only as 

it relates to Appendix I of Part 268); 

(157) Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV: 62 FR 25998, 5/12/97 (to 

remove and reserve Appendix I of Part 268); 

(192A) Mixture and Derived-From Rules Revisions: 66 FR 27266, 5/16/

01 (ME is not seeking authorization for the exclusions in this provision); 

Consolidated Checklist for the Universal Waste Rule as of June 30, 2001

(142A) Universal Waste Rule: General Provisions; 60 FR 25492, 5/11/

95; 

850.3A(2); 850.3A(4)(vii); 850.3A(10); 850.3A(11); 850.3A(13); 

850.3A(13)(a)(vi); 850.3A(13)(a)(ix); 850.3A(13)(a)(xiii); 

850.3A(13)(b)(1) through (b)(v); 850.3A(13)(c); 850.3A(13)(d); 

(142B) Universal Waste Rule: Specific Provisions for Batteries, 60 FR 

25492, 5/11/95; 

(142C) Universal Waste Rule: Specific Provisions for Pesticides, 60 FR 

25492, 5/11/95 (ME is not seeking authorization for this provision); 

850.3A(13(e); 850.3A(13)(e)(i); 850.3A(13)(e)(ii) and (e)(iii); 

850.3A(13)(e)(vi) through (e)(ix); 850.3A(13)(e)(xii) and (e)(xiii); 

850.3A(13)(e)(xv); 850.3A(13)(e)(xvi) and Notes; 

850.3A(13)(e)(xix)c.; 850.3A(13)(e)(xxi)a. and (xxi)c; 

850.3A(13)(e)(xxii) and (e)(xxiii); 850.3A(13)(e)(xxiii)a and (e)(xxiii)e.; 

(142D) Universal Waste Rule: Specific Provisions for Thermostats, 60 

FR 25492, 5/11/95; 

(143E) Universal Waste Rule: Petition Provisions to Add a New Universal Waste, 60 FR 25492, 5/11/95; 

(152) Imports and Exports of Hazardous Waste: Implementation of 

OECD Council Decision, 61 FR 16290, 7/11/96; 

850.3A(13)(e)(xxv)c.; 850.3A(13)(e)(xxvi) and (e)(xxvii); 

850.3A(13)(f)(iv) through (f)(vi); 850.3A(13)(g); 850.3A(g)(ii); 

850.3A(13)(g)(v); 850.3A(14); 850.3D; 850.3D(1); 850.3D(3) through 

(9); 

(153) Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Disposal Options 

under Subtitle D, 61 FR 34252, 7/1/96 (ME is not seeking authorization for this provision); 

(157) Land Disposal Restrictions—Phase IV,62 FR 25998, 5/12/97 (ME 

is not seeking authorization for this provision); 

851.3C; 851.3E; 853; 853.10B; 853.11O; 853.11Q, 854; 856; 857.4; 

857.7D; 857.7H 857.9A; 857.9A(1), (2); 857.9A(3)(f); 857.9C; 

(166) Recycled Used Oil Management Standards; Technical Correction 

and Clarification, 63 FR 24963, 5/6/98 and 63 FR 37780, 7/14/98 

(ME is not seeking authorization for this provision); 

(169) Petroleum Refining Process Wastes,63 FR 42110, 8/6/98 (ME is 

not seeking authorization for this provision); 

(176) Universal Waste Rule—Technical Amendments; 63 FR 71225, 

12/24/98; 

(181) Universal Waste Rule: Specific Provisions for Hazardous Waste 

Lamps, 64 FR 36466, 7/6/99; 

1State of Maine’s Hazardous Waste Management Rules, effective January 23, 2001, November 3, 2002, and July 20, 2004. 

Note: The final authorization of new state 

regulations and regulation changes is in 

addition to the previous authorization of 

state regulations, which have not changed 

and remain part of the authorized program.

H. Where Are the Revised State Rules 

Different From the Federal Rules? 

The most significant differences 

between the proposed State rules and 

the Federal rules are summarized below. 

It should be noted that this summary 

does not describe every difference, or 

every detail regarding the differences 

that are described. Members of the 

regulated community are advised to 

read the complete regulations to ensure 

that they understand all of the 

requirements with which they will need 

to comply. 

In this program change, EPA is only 

authorizing the State for the metals 

portion of the Toxicity Characteristic 

(TC) rule, for metals other than the 

chrome wastes at 850.3A(4)(xiv). EPA is 

not authorizing the Maine analog for 40 

CFR 261.4(b)(6)(ii) regarding chrome 

wastes because the Maine regulations 

continue to reference the EP toxicity test 

instead of the TCLP test for the specific 

exemptions for the leather tanning 

wastes listed at 850.3A(4)(xiv). This will 

be corrected in the next program change 

for Maine. EPA also is not authorizing 

Maine for the organics and pesticide 

wastes (waste codes D012 through 

D043), because Maine has not yet 

adopted the TC regulations for these 

wastes. EPA will continue to directly 

enforce the TC Rules in Maine for the 

remaining Toxicity Characteristics of 

DO12 through DO43 and the chrome 

wastes since both of these rules were 

promulgated under the Hazardous Solid 

Waste Amendments (HSWA) and EPA 

can enforce this regulation when 

necessary. Regulated entities will need 

to comply with the entire TC rule, but 

some parts of the rule will be enforced 

directly by EPA and some parts by the 

State. 

1. More Stringent Provisions 

There are aspects of the Maine 

program which are more stringent than 

the Federal program. All of these more 

stringent requirements are, or will, 

become part of the federally enforceable 

RCRA program when authorized by the 

EPA, and must be complied with in 

addition to the State requirements 

which track the minimum Federal 

requirements. 

The more stringent requirements 

relating to the Universal Waste Rule are 

as follows: Maine has not added 

pesticides to its list of Universal Wastes. 

Thus, pesticides in Maine remain fully 

regulated hazardous wastes. Also, all 

universal waste, except for ballasts and 

64864 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

mercury spill residue, must be sent for 

recycling under state rules whereas 

federal rules allow universal waste to be 

sent to treatment, storage or disposal 

facilities (TSDFs) or to a recycler. 

However, mercury spill residue and 

ballasts may be sent to a treatment, 

storage or disposal facility under the 

Maine rules. Also, in the Maine 

regulations generators can send 

universal wastes to their own central 

facility but not to another generator’s 

facility and may also ship to a 

consolidation facility or directly to a 

recycler, whereas the federal rules allow 

universal waste generators to send their 

universal waste to another universal 

waste handler, a destination facility, or 

a foreign destination. Additionally, the 

State definition of small universal waste 

generator, which is an equivalent term 

for the federal small quantity handler of 

universal waste, is more stringent in 

that to meet this definition this category 

of generator can only generate or 

accumulate on site no more than 200 

universal waste items, including 

batteries as described in 850.3A(14), or 

4,000 motor vehicle mercury switches at 

a time or in any given month, and the 

total weight must be no more than 40 

tons of cathode ray tubes or 5,000 kg of 

all other universal wastes. A one time 

generation of lamps under a Green 

Lights or similar program that is 

completed within 6 months or a 

mercury thermometer collection event, 

is exempt from the 200 item count 

provided that no more than 5,000 kg of 

universal waste are generated. In 

comparison, the federal definition of 

small quantity handler of universal 

waste means a universal waste handler 

who does not accumulate more than 

5000 kilograms total of universal waste 

at any time.

2. Broader-in-Scope Provisions 

There also are aspects of the Maine 

program which are broader in scope 

than the Federal program. The State 

requirements which are broader in 

scope are not considered to be part of 

the Federally enforceable RCRA 

program. However, they are fully 

enforceable under State law and must be 

complied with by sources within Maine. 

These broader-in-scope requirements 

include the following: Maine has added 

PCB ballasts to the State’s universal 

waste rule. PCB ballasts are not 

considered a federal hazardous waste 

however, the federal rule allows a state 

to include state-only hazardous wastes 

in their universal waste rules. Also, in 

addition to including lamps that fail the 

TCLP test in the State’s universal wastes 

rule, which is equivalent to the Federal 

requirements, the State includes lamps 

that contain mercury but pass the TCLP 

test in their universal waste rules, 

which is a partially broader in scope 

provision. 

3. Different but Equivalent Provisions 

There also are some Maine regulations 

which differ from, but have been 

determined to be equivalent to, the 

Federal regulations. These State 

regulations will become part of the 

Federally enforceable RCRA program 

when authorized by the EPA. These 

different but equivalent requirements 

include the following: (1) In addition to 

batteries, thermostats and mercurycontaining lamps which are included in 

the federal universal waste rule, Maine 

has added CRTs, mercury devices and 

motor vehicle mercury switches to the 

State’s universal waste rule. We deem 

this equivalent because the federal 

Universal Waste Rule allows states the 

flexibility to add additional hazardous 

wastes to their state list of universal 

wastes without requiring the waste to be 

added at the federal level; (2) In the 

federal universal waste rule, a universal 

waste handler may accumulate 

universal waste for more than one year 

from the date the universal waste is 

generated, or received from another 

handler, if the handler can show that 

this additional time is necessary to 

facilitate proper recovery, treatment or 

disposal. The state rule automatically 

assumes that a full container is 

necessary to facilitate proper recovery, 

treatment or disposal and no further 

proof is required to justify a longer 

storage period provided the generator 

complies with certain standards. These 

standards specify the container sizes for 

each type of universal waste and 

specifies that the storage must be for no 

more than 90 days from the date the 

container becomes full. We feel that the 

state’s generic determination that a full 

container is necessary to facilitate 

proper recovery, treatment or disposal 

and that specific container size 

requirements apply is environmentally 

‘‘equivalent’’ to the federal regulations 

which require sources to make case by 

case demonstrations when accumulating 

universal waste for more than one year. 

I. Who Handles Permits After the 

Authorization Takes Effect? 

Maine will issue permits for all the 

provisions for which it is authorized 

and will administer the permits it 

issues. EPA will continue to administer 

and enforce any RCRA and HSWA 

(Hazardous and Solid Waste Act) 

permits or portions of permits which it 

has issued in Maine prior to the 

effective date of this authorization until 

the State incorporates the terms and 

conditions of the federal permits into 

the State RCRA permits. EPA will not 

issue any more new permits, or new 

portions of permits, for the provisions 

listed in the Table above after the 

effective date of this authorization. EPA 

will continue to implement and issue 

permits for HSWA requirements for 

which Maine is not yet authorized. 

J. How Does Today’s Action Affect 

Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 115) in 

Maine? 

Maine has not applied for and is not 

authorized to carry out its federal 

hazardous waste program in Indian 

country within the State, which 

includes the land of the Houlton Band 

of Maliseet Indians, the Aroostook Band 

of Micmacs, the Passamaquoddy Tribe 

at Pleasant Point and Indian Township, 

and the Penobscot Nation. Therefore, 

this action has no effect on Indian 

country. EPA will continue to 

implement and administer the federal 

RCRA program in these lands. 

K. What Is Codification and Is EPA 

Codifying Maine’s Hazardous Waste 

Program as Authorized in This Rule? 

Codification is the process of placing 

the State’s statutes and regulations that 

comprise the State’s authorized 

hazardous waste program into the Code 

of Federal Regulations. We do this by 

referencing the authorized State rules in 

40 CFR part 272. We reserve the 

amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart 

U for this authorization of Maine’s 

program changes until a later date. 

L. Administrative Requirements 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has exempted this action from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); 

therefore, this action is not subject to 

review by OMB. This action authorizes 

State requirements for the purpose of 

RCRA section 3006 and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. Accordingly, I 

certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action 

authorizes pre-existing requirements 

under State law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by State law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4). For the same 

reason, this action also does not 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities or Tribal governments, as 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 64865

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action will not have substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 

merely authorizes State requirements as 

part of the State RCRA hazardous waste 

program without altering the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

RCRA. This action also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant and it does not 

make decisions based on environmental 

health or safety risks. This rule is not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

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 issuing 

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary 

steps to eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, 

and provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. EPA has complied 

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 

takings implications of the rule in 

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney 

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for 

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of 

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under 

the executive order. This rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this document and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication in the Federal Register. A 

major rule cannot take effect until 60 

days after it is published in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This 

action nevertheless will be effective 

January 10, 2005, because it is an 

immediate final rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste 

transportation, Indians—lands, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as 

amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

Dated: October 28, 2004. 

Ira Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England.

[FR Doc. 04–24920 Filed 11–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary 

49 CFR Part 40

[Docket OST–2003–15245] 

RIN 2105–AD47

Procedures for Transportation 

Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing 

Programs

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Interim final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Transportation is amending certain 

provisions of its drug and alcohol 

testing procedures to change 

instructions to laboratories and medical 

review officers with respect to 

adulterated, substituted, and diluted 

specimen results. This change is 

intended to avoid inconsistency with 

new requirements established by the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services that went into effect on 

November 1, 2004.

DATES: This rule is effective November 

9, 2004. Comments to the interim final 

rule should be submitted by December 

9, 2004. Late-filed comments will be 

considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not 

duplicate your docket submissions, 

please submit them by only one of the 

following means: 

(1) By mail to the Docket Management 

System (SVC–124), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Room PL–401, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001; 

(2) By delivery to room PL–401 on the 

Plaza Level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The telephone number is (202) 366–

9329; 

(3) By fax to the Docket Management 

Facility at (202) 493–2251; or, 

(4) By electronic means through the 

Web site for the Docket Management 

System at: http://dms.dot.gov. 

The Docket Management Facility 

maintains the public docket for this 

rulemaking. Comments to the docket 

will be available for inspection or 

copying at room PL–401 on the Plaza 

level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The public may also review docketed 

comments electronically at: http://

dms.dot.gov. 

Anyone wishing to file a comment 

should refer to the OST docket number 

(OST–2003–15245).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

L. Swart, Deputy Director (S–1), Office 

of Drug and Alcohol Policy and 

Compliance, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590; telephone 

number (202) 366–3784 (voice), (202) 

366–3897 (fax) , or 

jim.swart@ost.dot.gov (e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose 

Recently, the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) 

revised their Mandatory Guidelines (69 

FR 19644) with an effective date of 

November 1, 2004. Among the many 

revisions contained in the HHS 

Mandatory Guidelines are the 

requirements that laboratories modify 

substituted specimen and diluted 

specimen testing and reporting criteria. 

HHS revised laboratory requirements for 

adulterated specimen testing. HHS also 

requires each Federal agency to conduct 

specimen validity testing (SVT) to 

determine if urine specimens collected 

under HHS Federal Workplace Drug 

Testing Programs have been adulterated 

or substituted.