Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2897

use voluntary consensus standards in its

regulatory and procurement 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,

sampling procedures, and business

practices, etc.) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through the

Office of Management and Budget, an

explanation when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards. This

final rule does not involve technical

standards. It merely approves

regulations adopted by the State of

Alabama. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified Section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities.’’

Today’s final rule would not

significantly or uniquely affect

Alabama’s communities of Indian tribal

governments, since the rule does not

apply to them. Accordingly, the

requirements of Section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

I. Congressional Review Act

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. 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 rule

will be effective January 19, 2000.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 147

Environmental protection,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Water

supply.

Dated: December 22, 1999.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR part 147 is amended

as follows:

PART 147—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 147

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300h; and 42 U.S.C.

6901 et seq.

Subpart B—Alabama

2. Section 147.52 is added to Subpart

B to read as follows:

§ 147.52 State-administered program—

Hydraulic Fracturing of Coal Beds.

The UIC program for hydraulic

fracturing of coal beds in the State of

Alabama, except those on Indian lands,

is the program administered by the State

Oil and Gas Board of Alabama,

approved by EPA pursuant to Section

1425 of the SDWA on December 22,

1999 and effective on January 19, 2000.

The Alabama program consists of the

following elements, as submitted to EPA

in the State’s program application:

(a) Incorporation by reference. The

requirements set forth in State Oil and

Gas Board of Alabama Rule 400–4–1–

.02, Definitions, and Rule 400–4–5–.04,

Protection of Underground Sources of

Drinking Water during the Hydraulic

Fracturing of Coal Beds, are hereby

incorporated by reference and made a

part of the applicable UIC program

under the SDWA for the State of

Alabama. This incorporation by

reference was approved by the Director

of the Federal Register on January 19,

2000 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies may be

obtained at the State Oil and Gas Board

of Alabama, 420 Hackberry Lane,

Tuscaloosa, AL 35489–9780. Copies

may be inspected at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4, Water

Management Division, Ground Water/

Drinking Water Branch, Ground Water &

UIC Section, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal

Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.,

Room15–T53, Atlanta, GA 30303-8960,

or at the Office of the Federal Register,

800 N. Capitol Street NW, Suite 700,

Washington, DC.

(b) Addendum One, Underground

Injection Control Program,

Memorandum of Agreement Between

the State of Alabama and the USEPA

Region 4, signed by the Supervisor,

Alabama State Oil and Gas Board on

December 10, 1999, and the Regional

Administrator, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Region 4, on

December 13, 1999.

(c) Statement of Legal Authority. ‘‘I

hereby certify, pursuant to my authority

as Attorney General for the State of

Alabama and for reasons set forth in this

statement, that in my opinion, the laws

of the State of Alabama provide the

State Oil and Gas Board (hereinafter

referred to as ‘‘the Board’’) adequate

authority to carry out an Underground

Injection Program for the control of

underground injection activity related to

the hydraulic fracturing of coal beds.’’

Opinion by Alabama’s Attorney General

Office, extracted from Letter from R.

Craig Kneisel, Chief, Environmental

Division, Office of the Attorney General,

dated October 8, 1999, to Dr. Donald F.

Oltz, Supervisor, State Oil and Gas

Board of Alabama, Subject: Attorney

General’s Statement for Final

Authorization of Alabama Class II

Underground injection Control Program.

(d) The Program Description for the

Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing of

Coal Beds As required by 40 CFR

145.23—State Oil and Gas Board of

Alabama, including Appendices A

through F.

[FR Doc. 00–622 Filed 1–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–6525–5]

North Dakota: Final Authorization of

State Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

2898 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: North Dakota 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 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 proposed

rule because we believe this action is

not controversial. Unless we get written

comments opposing this authorization

during the comment period, the

decision to authorize North Dakota’s

changes to their hazardous waste

program will take effect as provided

below. If we receive comments that

oppose this action, we will publish a

document in the Federal Register

withdrawing this rule before it takes

effect. A separate document in the

proposed rules section of this Federal

Register will serve as the proposal to

authorize the State’s changes.

DATES: This immediate final rule will

become effective March 20, 2000 unless

EPA receives significant adverse or

critical comments by February 18, 2000.

If written significant adverse or critical

comments are received, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the rule

in the Federal Register, informing the

public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Kris Shurr, 8P–HW, U.S. EPA, Region

VIII, 999 18th St, Ste 500, Denver,

Colorado 80202–2466, phone number:

(303) 312–6139. You can view and copy

North Dakota’s application at the

following addresses: NDDH from 9:00

AM to 4:00 PM, 1200 Missouri Ave,

Bismarck, ND, 58504–5264, contact:

Curt Erickson, phone number (701) 328–

5166 and EPA Region VIII, from 8:00

AM to 3:00 PM, 999 18th Street, Suite

500, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466,

contact: Kris Shurr, phone number:

(303) 312–6139.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kris

Shurr, EPA Region VIII, 999 18th Street,

Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202–

2466, phone number: (303) 312–6139.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why Are Revisions To State

Programs Necessary?

States that have received final

authorization from EPA under RCRA

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

maintain a hazardous waste program

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 their changes. Changes

to State programs may be necessary

when Federal or State statutory or

regulatory authority is modified or

when certain other changes occur. Most

commonly, States must change their

programs because of changes to EPA’s

regulations in 40 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260

through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

B. What Decisions Have We Made In

This Rule?

We conclude that North Dakota’s

application to revise its authorized

program meets all of the statutory and

regulatory requirements established by

RCRA. Therefore, we grant North Dakota

Final authorization to operate its

hazardous waste program with the

changes described in the authorization

application. North Dakota has

responsibility for permitting Treatment,

Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)

within its borders, except in Indian

Country, and for carrying out those

portions 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 EPA under the authority of

HSWA take effect immediately and will

be implement by EPA until the State is

granted authorization.

C. What is The Effect of Today’s

Authorization Decision?

The effect of this decision is that a

facility in North Dakota subject to RCRA

will now have to comply with the

authorized State requirements instead of

the equivalent Federal requirements.

North Dakota has primary enforcement

responsibilities under its state

hazardous waste program for violations

of the program, but EPA retains its

authority under RCRA sections 3007,

3008, 3013, and 7003, which include,

among others, authority to:

• conduct inspections, and require

monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;

and

• enforce RCRA requirements and

suspend or revoke permits.

This action does not impose

additional requirements on the

regulated community because the

regulations for which North Dakota is

being authorized are already effective,

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 comments opposing this

approval. We are providing an

opportunity for public comment at this

time. In addition, in the proposed rules

section of today’s Federal Register,

there is a separate document that

proposes to authorize the State program

changes. If we receive comments

opposing this authorization, that

document will serve as a proposal to

authorize the changes.

E. What Happens if EPA Receives

Comments Opposing This Action?

If EPA receives comments opposing

this authorization, we will withdraw

this rule by publishing a document in

the Federal Register before the rule

becomes effective. We then will address

all public comments in a later Federal

Register. You may not have another

opportunity to comment. If you want to

comment on this action, you must do so

at this time.

If we receive comments opposing

authorization of only a particular

change to the State hazardous waste

program, we will withdraw that part of

the rule. However, the authorization of

program changes that are not opposed

by any comments 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 North Dakota Previously

Been Authorized For?

North Dakota initially received Final

authorization on October 5, 1984,

effective October 19, 1984 (49 FR 39328)

to implement the RCRA hazardous

waste management program. We granted

authorization for changes to their

program on June 25, 1990, effective

August 24, 1990 (55 FR 25836), May 4,

1992, effective July 6, 1992 (57 FR

19087), and April 7, 1994, effective June

6, 1994 (59 FR 16566).

G. What Changes Are We Authorizing

With Today’s Action?

In October 1994, North Dakota

submitted a final revision application,

seeking authorization of program

changes in accordance with 40 CFR

271.21. At EPA’s request, North Dakota

amended its application in July 1995,

July 1997, August 1998, and September

1999.

We have determined that the manner

in which the North Dakota incorporates

Federal regulations by reference may

cause confusion within the regulated

community. During State rulemaking,

North Dakota publishes a Public Notice

setting forth which Federal rules are

adopted by reference, including the date

of those Federal rules. However,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2899

publications of State rules after the

Public Notice do not include the date of

applicable Federal rules. As a result, the

regulated community may need to read

the North Dakota Public Notice to know

which Federal rule applies. With North

Dakota’s agreement, EPA is approving

the current application with the

understanding that the State will

include Federal regulation dates in the

next and all future incorporation-byreference rulemaking.

We now make an immediate final

decision, subject to receipt of written

comments opposing this action, that

North Dakota’s hazardous waste

program revision satisfies all of the

requirements necessary for Final

authorization. Therefore, we grant North

Dakota Final authorization for the

following program changes:

Description of Federal requirement Analogous State authority and effective date

Exceptions to the Burning & Blending of Hazardous Waste [HSWA

3004(q)(2)(A) & 3004 (r)(2) & (3)] (Non-checklist BB).

NDCC 23–20.3–04/1987, NDAC 33–24–02–04; NDAC 33–24–02–06.

Hazardous & Used Oil Fuel Criminal Penalties [HSWA 3006(h),

3008(d), & 3014] (Non-checklist CP).

NDCC 23–20.3–09/1987 NDAC 33–24–05–600 thru 689.

Sharing of Information With the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry [HSWA 3019, 07/15/85] (Non-checklist SI).NDCC 44–04–18/1987.

Surface Impoundment Requirements [HSWA 3005 (j)(1) & (6)] (Nonchecklist SR1).NDCC 23–20.3–04; 23–20.3–05/1987, NDAC 33–24–06–16.

Surface Impoundment Requirements [HSWA 3005 (j)(2)–(9) &(13)]

(Non-checklist SR2).

NDCC 23–20.3–04/1987, NDAC 33–24–06–16.

Permit Modifications for Hazardous Waste Management Facilities [53

FR 37912–37942, 09/28/88 & 53 FR 41649, 10/24/88] (Checklist 54

& 54.1).

33–24–07–03; 33–24–05–29; 33–24–05–61; 33–24–05–67; 33–24–06–

16; 33–24–01–04; 33–24–06–10; 33–24–06–04; 33–24–06–11; 33–

24–06–12; 33–24–06–14; 33–24–06–19.

Identification & Listing of Hazardous Waste; Removal of Iron Dextran

from the list of Hazardous Wastes [53 FR 43878–43881, 10/31/88]

(Checklist 56).

33–24–02–18; 33–24–02, Appendix V.

Identification & Listing of Hazardous Waste; Removal of Strontium Sulfide from the list of Hazardous Wastes [53 FR 43881–43884, 10/31/

88] (Checklist 57).

33–24–02–18; 33–24–02, Appendix V.

Changes to Interim Status Facilities for Hazardous Waste Management

Permits; Procedures for Post-Closure Permitting [54 FR 9596–9609,

03/07/89] (Checklist 61).

33–24–07–01; 33–24–07–11; 33–24–07–14; 33–24–06–01; 33–24–06–

13; 33–24–06–14; 33–24–06–16.

Land Disposal Restrictions; Amendments to First Third Scheduled

Wastes [54 FR 18836–18838, 05/02/89] (Checklist 62).

33–24–05–283.

Land Disposal Restrictions; Corrections to the First Third Scheduled

Wastes [54 FR 36967, 09/06/89 & 55 FR 23935, 06/13/90] (Checklist

66 & 66.1).

33–24–05–250; 33–24–05–254; 33–24–05–254; 33–24–05–255; 33–

24–05–256; 33–24–05–257; 33–24–05–272; 33–24–05–273; 33–24–

05–284; 33–24–05–290.

Modification of F019 Listing [55 FR 5340–5342, 02/14/90] (Checklist

72).

33–24–02–16.

Listing of 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine Production Wastes [55 FR 18496–

18506, 05/02/90] (Checklist 75).

33–24–02–17; 33–24–02.

Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third Scheduled Wastes [55 FR

22520–22720, 06/01/90] (Checklist 78H & N).

33–24–02, App IV; 33–24–02–10 thru 14; 33–24–02–16; 33–24–02–18;

33–24–03–02; 33–24–03–12; 33–24–05, Appendices VIII thru XI;

33–24–05, Appendix XIII 33–24–05–04; 33–24–05–120; 33–24–05–

133; 33–24–05–168; 33–24–05–181; 33–24–05–185; 33–24–05–250

thru 252; 33–24–05–256; 33–24–05–258; 33–24–05–275; 33–24–

05–280 thru 283; 33–24–06–14; 33–24–06–16.

Toxicity Characteristic; Hydrocarbon Recovery Operations [55 FR

40834–40837, 10/05/90; 56 FR 3978, 02/01/91; 56 FR 13406–

13411, 04/02/91] (Checklist 80, 80.1, & 80.2).

33–24–02–04.

Petroleum Refinery Primary & Secondary Oil/Water/Solids Separation

Sludge Listings (F037 & F038) [55 FR 46354–46397, 11/02/90; 55

FR 51707, 12/17/90] (Checklist 81 & 81.1).

33–24–02, Appendix IV; 33–24–02–16.

Wood Preserving Listings [55 FR 50450–50490, 12/6/90] (Checklist 82) 33–24–02, Table 1, Appendix III; 33–24–02, Appendices IV & V; 33–

24–01–04; 33–24–02–04; 33–24–02–16; 33–24–02–19; 33–24–03–

12; 33–24–05–103; 33–24–05–501 thru 506; 33–24–06–16; 33–24–

06–17.

Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third Scheduled Wastes; Technical Amendments [56 FR 3864–3928, 01/31/91] (Checklist 83).33–24–02–03; 33–24–02–10; 33–24–02–16; 33–24–03–02; 33–24–03–

12; 33–24–05–251; 33–24–05–256; 33–24–05–258; 33–24–05–273;

33–24–05–275; 33–24–05–280 thru 283; 33–24–05, Appendices I, V,

VIII, IX, XI, & XIII.

Toxicity Characteristic; Chlorofluorocarbon Refrigerants [56 FR 5910–

5915, 02/13/91] (Checklist 84).

33–24–02–04.

Removal of Strontium Sulfide from the List of Hazardous Wastes;

Technical Amendment [56 FR 7567–7568, 02/25/91] (Checklist 86).

33–24–02, Appendix V; 33–24–02–18.

Organic Air Emission Standards for Process Vents & Equipment Leaks;

Technical Amendment [56 FR 19290, 04/26/91] (Checklist 87).

33–24–05–400; 33–24–05–403; 33–24–05–405; 33–24–05–422; 33–

24–06–16; 33–24–06–17.

Administrative Stay for K069 Listing [56 FR 19951, 05/01/91] (Checklist

88).

33–24–02–17.

Revision to the Petroleum Refining Primary & Secondary Oil/Water/Solids Separation Sludge Listings (F037 & F038) [56 FR 21955–21960,

05/13/91] (Checklist 89).

33–24–02–16.

Mining Waste Exclusion III [56 FR 27300–27330, 06/13/91] (Checklist

90).

33–24–02–04.

2900 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Description of Federal requirement Analogous State authority and effective date

Wood Preserving Listings [56 FR 27332–27336, 06/13/91] (Checklist

91).

33–24–02–16; 33–24–05–504; 33–24–06–16.

Wood Preserving Listings; Technical Corrections [56 FR 30192–30198,

7/1/91] (Checklist 92).

33–24–02–04; 33–24–02–19; 33–24–03–12; 33–24–05–501; 33–24–

05–502 thru 506; 33–24–06–16; 33–24–06–17.

Land Disposal Restrictions for Electric Arc Furnace Dust (K061) [56 FR

41164–41178, 8/19/91] (Checklist 95).

33–24–02–03; 33–24–02–04; 33–24–05–281; 33–24–05–282.

Exports of Hazardous Waste; Technical Correction [56 FR 43704–

43705] (Checklist 97).

33–24–03–20; 33–24–03–23.

Amendments to Interim Status Standards for Down-gradient GroundWater Monitoring Well Locations [56 FR 66365–66369, 12/23/91]

(Checklist 99).

33–24–01–04; 33–24–06–16.

Liners & Leak Detection Systems for Hazardous Waste Land Disposal

Units [57 FR 3462–3497, 1/29/92] (Checklist 100).

33–24–01–04; 33–24–05–06; 33–24–05–10; 33–24–05–40; 33–24–05–

119; 33–24–05–120; 33–24–05–122; 33–24–05–126; 33–24–05–

127; 33–24–05–131; 33–24–05–132; 33–24–05–137; 33–24–05–

138; 33–24–05–177; 33–24–05–178; 33–24–05–180; 33–24–05–

187; 33–24–05–188; 33–24–06–10; 33–24–06–14; 33–24–06–16;

33–24–06–17.

Administrative Stay for the Requirement that Existing Drip Pads Be Impregnable [57 FR 5859–5861, 2/18/92] (Checklist 101).33–24–06–16.

Second Correction to the Third Third Land Disposal Restrictions [57 FR

8086–8089, 3/6/92] (Checklist 102).

33–24–05–04; 33–24–05–252; 33–24–05–281; 33–24–05–282;

33–24–06–16

Hazardous Debris Case-by-Case Capacity Variance [57 FR 20766–

20770, 5/15/92] (Checklist 103).

33–24–05–275..

Used Oil Filter Exclusion [57 FR 21524–21534, 5/29/92] (Checklist

104).

33–24–02–04

Lead-bearing Hazardous Materials Case-by-Case Capacity Variance

[57 FR 28628–28632, 6/26/92] (Checklist 106).

33–24–05–275.

Used Oil Filter Exclusion: Technical Corrections [57 FR 29220, 7/1/92]

(Checklist 107).

33–24–02–04.

Toxicity Characteristics Revisions: Technical Corrections [57 FR

30657–30658, 07/10/92] (Checklist 108).

33–24–02–04; 33–24–06–16.

Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly Listed Wastes & Hazardous Debris [57 FR 37194–37282] (Checklist 109).33–24–01–04; 33–24–02–03; 33–24–03–12; 33–24–05, Appendix VI;

33–24–05–59 thru 61; 33–24–05–74; 33–24–05–76; 33–24–05–251;

33–24–05–254; 33–24–05–256; 33–24–05–258; 33–24–05–265; 33–

24–05–276; 33–24–05–280 thru 283; 33–24–05–285; 33–24–05–

286; 33–24–05–290; 33–24–05–475 thru 500; 33–24–06–14; 33–24–

06–16; 33–24–06–17.

Consolidated Liability Requirements [53 FR 33938–33960, 9/1/88; 56

FR 30200, 7/1/91; 57 FR 42832–42844, 9/16/92] (Checklist 113).

33–24–05–75; 33–24–05–77; 33–24–05–79; 33–24–05–81; 33–24–06–

16.

Chlorinated Toluenes Production Waste Listing [57 FR 47376–47386,

10/15/92] (Checklist 115).

33–24–02, Appendix IV; 33–24–02–17.

Hazardous Soil Case-By-Case Capacity Variance [57 FR 47772–

47776, 10/20/92] (Checklist 116).

33–24–05–275.

Toxicity Characteristic Amendment [57 FR 23062–23063, 06/01/92]

(Checklist 117B).

33–24–02–03.

Liquids in Landfills II [57 FR 54452–54461, 11/18/92] (Checklist 118) ... 33–24–05–04; 33–24–05–183; 33–24–05–185; 33–24–06–16.

Toxicity Characteristic Revision; TCLP Correction [57 FR 55114–

55117, 11/24/92] (Checklist 119).

33–24–02, Appendix II.

Wood Preserving: Revisions to Listings & Technical Requirements [57

FR 61492–61505, 12/24/92] (Checklist 120).

33–24–02–16; 33–24–05–501 thru 504; 33–24–06–16.

Corrective Action Management Units & Temporary Units [58 FR 8658–

8685, 2/16/93] (Checklist 121).

33–24–01–04; 33–24–05–01; 33–24–05–58; 33–24–05–251; 33–24–

05–552; 33–24–05–553; 33–24–06–14; 33–24–06–16.

Land Disposal Restrictions; Renewal of the Hazardous Waste Debris

Case-By-Case Capacity Variance [58 FR 28506–28511, 5/14/93]

(Checklist 123).

33–24–05–275.

Land Disposal Restrictions for Ignitable & Corrosive Characteristic

Wastes Whose Treatment Standards Were Vacated [58 FR 29860–

29887, 5/24/93] (Checklist 124).

33–24–05–01; 33–24–05–250; 33–24–05–251; 33–24–05–256; 33–24–

05–258; 33–24–05–277; 33–24–05–280 thru 283; 33–24–06–14; 33–

24–6–16.

1 North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC), Article 33–24, as amended through January 1, 1994, unless otherwise indicated.

H. Where Are the Revised State Rules

Different Fromt he Federal Rules?

We consider the following State

requirements to be more stringent than

the Federal requirements: 33–24–01–

04.27, because the State does not allow

a closed or closing unit to be designated

as a corrective action management unit;

33–24–02–04.2.i, because the State

excludes only discarded wood or wood

products that fail for the Toxic

Characteristic Leaching Procedure for

arsenic while Federal rules exclude

discarded wood or wood products that

fail for Hazardous Waste Codes D004

through D017; 33–24–03–12.1.a(1),

because North Dakota subjects

containers to full status rather than

interim status standards; 33–24–03–

12.1.a(2), because North Dakota subjects

tanks to full status rather than interim

status standards; 33–24–03–12.1.a(1),

because North Dakota subjects

containment buildings to full status

rather than interim status standards; 33–

24–05–01.2, because the State does not

allow for interim status facilities; 33–

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2901

24–05–04.1.a, because the State does not

allow owners/operators of closed

landfills to accept non-hazardous waste

under certain conditions; 33–24–05–

256.2.e.(3), because the State does not

allow a treatment facility with interim

status units to treat hazardous waste;

33–24–05–281.2, because the State does

not differentiate between high and low

zinc non-wastewater (K061 wastes); 33–

24–05–282.1.b and 33–24–05–282.1,

Table 1, because the State does not

allow a treatment facility with interim

status units to treat hazardous waste;

33–24–05–282.3.a, because the State

does not allow a treatment facility with

interim status units to treat hazardous

waste; 33–24–05–282.3.c, because the

State does not allow lab packs eligible

for land disposal to be disposed at

interim status landfills; 33–24–05–

283.3.a, because the State does not

allow a treatment facility with interim

status units to treat hazardous waste;

33–24–05–552.2.a.1 & 2.b, because the

State does not have an analog to 40 CFR

265.113 for interim facilities; North

Dakota does not have an equivalent to

40 CFR 265.145(f)(9) making the State

more stringent. Nevertheless, these

requirements are part of North Dakota’s

authorized program and are Federally

enforceable.

We also consider the following State

requirements to go beyond the scope of

the Federal program: 33–24–06–

14(7)(a)(3), because the State has

requirements for newly regulated wastes

and units that are not required by

Federal rules. Broader-in-scope

requirements are not part of the

authorized program and EPA cannot

enforce them. Although a facility must

comply with these requirements in

accordance with State law, they are not

RCRA requirements.

EPA cannot delegate the Federal

requirements at 40 CFR 268.5, 268.6,

268.42(b), and 268.44. EPA will

continue to implement these

requirements.

I. Who Handles Permits After This

Authorization Takes Effect?

North Dakota will issue and

administer permits for all the provisions

for which it is authorized. EPA will

continue to administer any RCRA

hazardous waste permits or portions of

permits that we issued prior to the

effective date of this authorization. EPA

will transfer any pending permit

applications, completed permits, or

pertinent file information to North

Dakota within 30 days of this approval.

We 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 and North Dakota

have agreed to joint permitting and

enforcement for those HSWA

requirements for which North Dakota is

not yet authorized.

J. How Does Today’s Action Affect

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

Dakota?

North Dakota is not authorized to

carry out its hazardous waste program

in Indian country, as defined in 18

U.S.C. 1151. This includes:

1. Lands within the exterior

boundaries of the following Indian

Reservations located within or abutting

the State of North Dakota:

a. Fort Totten Indian Reservation

b. Fort Berthold Indian Reservation

c. Standing Rock Indian Reservation

d. Turtle Mountain Indian

Reservation

2. Any land held in trust by the U.S.

for an Indian tribe, and

3. Any other land, whether on or off

a reservation that qualifies as Indian

country.

Therefore, this action has no effect in

Indian country where EPA will continue

to implement and administer the RCRA

program in these lands.

In excluding Indian country from the

scope of this program revision, we are

not making a determination that the

State either has adequate jurisdiction or

lacks jurisdiction over sources in Indian

country. Should the State of North

Dakota choose to seek program

authorization within Indian country, it

may do so without prejudice. Before

EPA would approve the State’s program

for any portion of Indian Country, we

must be satisfied that the State has

authority, either pursuant to explicit

Congressional authorization or

applicable principles of Federal Indian

law, to enforce its laws against existing

and potential pollution sources within

any geographical area for which it seeks

program approval and that such

approval would constitute sound

administrative practice.

K. What is Codification and is EPA

Codifying North Dakota’s Hazardous

Waste Program as Authorized in this

Rule?

Codification is the process of placing

the State’s authorized hazardous waste

program statutes and regulations 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

JJ for this authorization of North

Dakota’s program until a later date.

L. Regulatory Analysis and Notices

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ 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. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that 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/or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

the private sector. Costs to State, local

and/or tribal governments already exist

under the State program, and today’s

action does not impose any additional

obligations on regulated entities. In fact,

EPA’s approval of State programs

generally may reduce, not increase,

compliance costs for the private sector.

Further, as it applies to the State, this

action does not impose a Federal

intergovernmental mandate because

2902 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

UMRA does not include duties arising

from participation in a voluntary federal

program.

The requirements of section 203 of

UMRA also do not apply to today’s

action because this rule contains no

regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Although small

governments may be hazardous waste

generators, transporters, or own and/or

operate TSDFs, they are already subject

to the regulatory requirements under the

existing State laws that are being

authorized by EPA, and, thus, are not

subject to any additional significant or

unique requirements by virtue of this

program approval.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute unless the agency

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s action on small entities, small

entity is defined as: (1) A small business

as specified in the Small Business

Administration regulations; (2) a small

governmental jurisdiction that is a

government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

population of less than 50,000; and (3)

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of this authorization on small

entities, I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

This action does not impose any new

requirements on small entities because

small entities that are hazardous waste

generators, transporters, or that own

and/or operate TSDFs are already

subject to the regulatory requirements

under the State laws which EPA is now

authorizing. This action merely

authorizes for the purpose of RCRA

section 3006 those existing State

requirements.

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Executive Order 12866.

Compliance With Executive Order

13132 (Federalism)

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that 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.’’

Under section 6 of Executive Order

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This authorization does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

a substantial direct effect on 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, because this

rule affects only one State. This action

simply approves the State’s proposal to

be authorized for updated requirements

of the hazardous waste program that the

State has voluntarily chosen to operate.

Further, as a result of this action, newly

authorized provisions of the State’s

program now apply in lieu of the

equivalent Federal program provisions

implemented by EPA under HSWA.

Affected parties are subject only to those

authorized State program provisions, as

opposed to being subject to both Federal

and State regulatory requirements.

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of

the Executive Order do not apply.

Compliance With Executive Order

13045

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks,’’ applies to any

rule that: (1) the Office of Management

and Budget determines is ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have 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

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it is not an

economically significant rule as defined

by Executive Order 12866, and because

it does not involve decisions based on

environmental health or safety risks.

Compliance With Executive Order

13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies

with consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13084 because it does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. North Dakota is not

authorized to implement the RCRA

hazardous waste program in Indian

country. This action has no effect on the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2903

hazardous waste program that EPA

implements in the Indian country

within the State.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal agencies

must consider the paperwork burden

imposed by any information request

contained in a proposed rule or a final

rule. This rule will not impose any

information requirements upon the

regulated community.

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary

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, sampling procedures, 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 use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

This action does not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste

transportation, Indian lands,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, 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: January 5, 2000.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

[FR Doc. 00–1067 Filed 1–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6525–3]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final deletion of the

Renora, Inc., Superfund Site from the

National Priorities List.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Region II Office announces the deletion

of the Renora, Inc., Site from the

National Priorities List (NPL) and

requests public comment on this action.

The NPL constitutes appendix B of 40

CFR part 300, which is the National Oil

and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended.

EPA and the New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection (NJDEP) have

determined that all appropriate

response actions under CERCLA have

been implemented at the Site to protect

human health and the environment.

DATES: This ‘‘direct final’’ action will be

effective March 20, 2000 unless EPA

receives significant adverse or critical

comments by February 18, 2000. If

written significant adverse or critical

comments are received, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the rule

in the Federal Register, informing the

public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Grisell Dı ́az-Cotto, Remedial Project

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway-19th

Floor, New York, NY 10007–1866.

Comprehensive information on this

Site is available for viewing at the

Renora, Inc., Site information

repositories at the following locations:

Edison Township Public Library, 340

Plainfield Avenue, Edison, New

Jersey 08817, (732) 287–2298;

and

U.S. EPA Records Center, 290

Broadway—18th Floor, New York,

New York 10007–1866, Hours: 9:00

am to 5:00 pm—Monday through

Friday, Contact: Superfund Records

Center (212) 637–4308.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Grisell Dı ́az-Cotto, Remedial Project

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway—19th

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866, (212) 637–4430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

V. Action

I. Introduction

The United States Environmental

Protection Agency Region II announces

the deletion of the Renora, Inc., Site (the

‘‘Site’’), which is located in Edison

Township, Middlesex County, New

Jersey, from the National Priorities List

(NPL), which constitutes appendix B of

the National Oil and Hazardous

Substance Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), 40 CFR part 300, and requests

comments on this deletion. EPA

identifies sites that appear to present a

significant risk to public health, welfare,

or the environment and maintains the

NPL as the list of these sites. Pursuant

to 40 CFR 300.425(e) of the NCP, any

site or portion of a site deleted from the

National Priorities List remains eligible

for Fund-financed remedial actions if

future conditions at the site warrant

such action.

EPA will accept comments,

concerning this document, for thirty

days after publication of this document

in the Federal Register.

Section II of this document explains

the criteria for deleting sites from the

NPL. Section III discusses the

procedures that EPA is using for this

action. Section IV discusses the Renora,

Inc., Site and explains how the Site

meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the

NCP, sites may be deleted from the NPL

where no further response is

appropriate. In making a determination

to delete a site from the NPL, EPA, in

consultation with the New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

(NJDEP), shall consider whether any of

the following criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other persons

have implemented all appropriate response

actions required;

(ii) All appropriate responses under

CERCLA have been implemented, and no

further response action by responsible parties

is appropriate; or

(iii) The remedial investigation has shown

that the release poses no significant threat to

public health or the environment and,

therefore, taking of remedial measures is not

appropriate.

Deletion of a site from the NPL does

not preclude eligibility for subsequent

Fund-financed actions at the Site if