Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 29981

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–6604–3]

Oklahoma: Final Authorization of State

Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: The State of Oklahoma has

applied for Final authorization to revise

its Hazardous Waste Program under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). The EPA is now making an

immediate final decision, subject to

receipt of written comment that oppose

this action, that Oklahoma’s Hazardous

Waste Program revision satisfies all of

the requirements necessary to qualify

for final authorization.

DATES: This immediate final rule is

effective on July 10, 2000 without

further notice, unless EPA receives

adverse comments by June 9, 2000.

Should EPA receive such comments, it

will publish a timely document

withdrawal informing the public that

the rule will not take effect or affirm

that the immdediate final rule will take

effect as scheduled.

ADDRESSES: Written comments, referring

to Docket Number Ok-00–2, should be

sent to Alima Patterson Region 6

Regional Authorization Coordinator,

Grants and Authorization Section (6PD–

G), Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division, EPA Region 6, 1145 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.

Copies of Oklahoma program revision

application and the materials which

EPA used in evaluating the revision are

available for inspection and copying

from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday

through Friday at the following

addresses: Oklahoma Department of

Environmental Quality, 707 North

Robinson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

73101–1677, (405) 702–7180–7180 and

EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, (214) 665–

6444.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alima Patterson (214) 665–8533.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why Are Revisions to State

Programs Necessary?

States that receive 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

Hazardous Waste Program. As the

Federal program changes, States must

change their programs and ask EPA to

authorize the changes. Changes to State

programs may be necessary when

Federal or State statutory or regulatory

authority is modified or when certain

other changes occur. Most commonly,

States must change their programs

because of changes to EPA’s regulations

in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

parts 124, 260–266, 268, 270, 273, and

279.

B. What Is the Effect of Today’s

Authorization Decision ?

The effect of this decision is that a

facility in Oklahoma 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. Oklahoma

has enforcement responsibilities under

its state hazardous waste program for

violations of such program, but EPA

retains its authority under RCRA

sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003,

which include, among others, authority

to: (1) Do inspections, and require

monitoring, tests, analyses or reports, (2)

enforce RCRA requirements and

suspend or revoke permits, and (3) take

enforcement actions regardless of

whether the State has taken its own

actions. This action does not impose

additional requirements on the

regulated community because the

regulations for which Oklahoma is being

authorized by today’s action are already

effective, and are not changed by today’s

action.

C. What Is the History of Oklahoma’s

Final Authorization and Its Revisions?

Oklahoma initially received Final

Authorization on January 10, 1985, (49

FR 50362) to implement its base

hazardous waste management program.

We authorized the following revisions:

Oklahoma received authorization for

revisions to its program on June 18,

1990 (55 FR 14280), effective November

27, 1990; (55 FR 39274) effective June 3,

1991; (56 FR 13411) effective November

19, 1991; (56 FR 47675) effective

December 21, 1994; (59 FR 51116–

51122) effective April 27, 1995; (60 FR

2699–2702) effective October 9, 1996;

(61 FR 52884–52886), Technical

Correction effective March 14, 1997 (62

FR 12100); effective February 8, 1999

(63 FR 67800–67802) and (65 FR 16528)

effective April 28, 2000. The authorized

Oklahoma RCRA program was

incorporated by reference into the CFR

effective December 13, 1993, and July

14, 1998. On October 21, 1999,

Oklahoma applied approval of its

complete program revision. In this

application, Oklahoma is seeking

approval of its program revision in

accordance with § 271.21(b)(3).

Oklahoma statutes provide authority

for a single State agency, the Oklahoma

Department of Environmental Quality

(ODEQ,) to administer the provisions of

the State Hazardous Waste Management

Program. These statutes are the

Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act,

27 O.S. Supplement (Supp) 1997 §§ 1–

1–101 et seq. General provisions of the

Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code

which may affect the Hazardous Waste

Program, 27A O.S. Supp. 1997 §§ 2–1–

101 through 2–3–507; and the

Oklahoma Hazardous Waste

Management Act (OHWMA), 27A O.S.

Supp. 1997 §§ 2–7–101 et seq. No

amendments were made to the above

statutory authorities during the 1999

legislative session which will

substantially affect the State Hazardous

Waste Management Program.

On January 12, 1999, the Council

voted to recommend permanent

revocation of Oklahoma Administrative

Code (OAC) 252:200 and permanent

adoption of OAC 252:205. The

permanent revocation of OAC 252:200

and permanent adoption of OAC

252:205 is a part of the ODEQ’s effort to

simplify and streamline it rules for the

benefit of regulated entities and the

public as well as the agency itself. This

‘‘rewrite’’ of Oklahoma’s hazardous

waste regulations is not intended to

change substantive requirements

previously found in OAC 252:200, but

to make the requirements clearer and

more concise. The effort stems in part

from 1997 legislation requiring most

Oklahoma administrative agencies to

perform regulatory reviews. Due to

extensive reworking of the language and

rearrangement of the text, the ODEQ

believes it is more understandable and

straightforward to revoke Chapter 200 in

its entirety and replace it with a new

chapter, Chapter 205, than to present an

amended version of Chapter 200.

These rules include provisions, found

at OAC 252:205–3–1 through 252:200–

3–7, to incorporate by reference, in

accordance with the Guidelines For

State Adoption of Federal Regulations

By Reference, the following EPA

Hazardous Waste Management

Regulations as amended through July 1,

1998. [The provisions of Title 40 CFR

part 124 which are required by 40 CFR

part 271.14 as well as parts 124.31,

124.32, and 124.33; 40 CFR parts 260–

266, with the exception of 40 CFR parts

260.20 through 260.22, 264.149,

264.150, 264.301(1), the Appendix VI to

part 264, 265.149, and 265.150; 40 CFR

part 268 except 268.5, 268.6, 268.10–13,

268.42(b) and 268.44; 40 CFR part 270

29982 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

except 270.14(b)(18); 40 CFR part 273;

and 40 CFR part 279]. Additionally, the

rules adopt the new or superseding

amendments to 40 CFR found in 63 FR

37780–37782 published July 14, 1998

dealing with used oil management

standards. Oklahoma has added

mercury-containing lamps as a ‘‘State

only’’ universal waste, thereby

modifying appropriate provisions of the

above CFR citations.

The Board adopted these amendments

on March 5, 1999 as permanent rules.

These permanent rules which became

effective on June 11, 1999, implement

the State hazardous waste program, and

are codified in the OAC at OAC 252:205

et seq.

The ODEQ remains the official agency

of the State of Oklahoma, as designated

by 27A O.S. Supp. 1998 Section 2–7–

105(13) to cooperate with Federal

agencies for purposes of hazardous

waste regulation.

The OHWMA delegates authority to

the ODEQ to administer the State

hazardous waste program, including the

statutory and regulatory provisions

necessary to administer the RCRA

cluster VIII provisions. Currently,

Oklahoma Corporation Commission

(OCC) regulates certain aspects of the oil

and gas production and transportation

industry in Oklahoma, including certain

wastes generated by pipelines, bulk fuel

sales terminals and certain tank farms.

The ODEQ and the OCC have in place

a ODEQ/OCC jurisdictional Guidance

Document that reflects the current sate

of affairs between the two agencies. The

ODEQ exclusively regulates hazardous

waste in Oklahoma (excluding Indian

lands) and the OCC does not regulate

hazardous waste in Oklahoma. The

current ODEQ/OCC Jurisdictional

Guidance Document was signed on

January 27, 1999.

D. What Revisions Are We Approving

With Today’s Action?

Oklahoma applied for final approval

of its revision to its complete program

in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21.

Oklahoma’s revisions consist of

regulations which specifically govern

RCRA Cluster VIII. Oklahoma

requirements are included in a chart

with this document. EPA is now making

a final decision, subject to receipt of

written comments that oppose this

action, that Oklahoma’s revisions of its

hazardous waste program satisfies all of

the requirements necessary to qualify

for final authorization. Therefore, we

grant Oklahoma final authorization for

the following program revisions:

Federal Citation State Analog

1. Land Disposal Restrictions Phase III—Emergency Extension of the

K088 National Capacity Variance [62 FR 37694–37699], July 14,

1997. (Checklist 160).

27A O.S. Supp. 1998 § 2–2–104 Added by Laws 1994, effective July 1,

1994, Annotated Oklahoma Statutes, 27 A. O.S. Supp 1998 § 2–7–

106 Amended by Laws 1993, effective July 1, 1993, Rules 252:205–

3–1 through 252:205–3–7 permanent effective June 11, 1999.

2. Second Emergency Revision of the Land Disposal Restrictions

Treatment Standards for Listed Hazardous Wastes From Carbamate

Production [62 FR 45568–45573], August 28, 1997] (Checklist 161).

27A O.S. Supp. 1998 § 2–2–104 Added by Laws 1994, effective July 1,

1994, 27A O.S. Supp 1998 § 2–7–106 Amended by Laws 1993, effective July 1, 1993, Rules 252:205–3–1 through 252:205–3–7 permanent effective June 11, 1999.

3. Clarification of Standards for Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Restriction Treatment Variances [62 FR 64504–6409], December 5,

1997. (Checklist 162).

27A O.S. Supp. 1998 § 2–2–104 Added by Laws 1994, effective July 1,

1994, 27A O.S. Supp 1998 § 2–7–106 Amended by Laws 1993, effective July 1, 1993, Rules 252:205–3–1 through 252:205–3–7 permanent effective June 11, 1999.

4. Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities and

Hazardous Waste Generators, Organic Air Emission Standards for

Tanks, Surface Impoundments, and Containers [62 FR 64636–

64671], December 8, 1997. (Checklist 163).

27A O.S. Supp. 1998 § 2–2–104 Added by Laws 1994, effective July 1,

1994, 27A O.S. Supp 1998 § 2–7–106 Amended by Laws 1993, effective July 1, 1993, Rules 252:205–3–1 through 252:205–3–7 permanent effective June 11, 1999.

5. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards; Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category [63 FR 18504–18751],

April 15, 1998. (Checklist 164).

27A O.S. Supp. 1998 § 2–2–104 Added by Laws 1994, effective July 1,

1994, 27A O.S. Supp 1998 § 2–7–106 Amended by Laws 1993, effective July 1, 1993, Rules 252:205–3–1 through 252:205–3–7 permanent effective June 11, 1999.

12. Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV—Exclusion of Recycled Wood

Preserving Wastewaters [63 FR 28556], May 26, 1998. (Checklist

167F).

27A O.S. Supp. 1998 § 2–2–104 Added by Laws 1994, effective July 1,

1994, 27A O.S. Supp 1998 § 2–7–106 Amended by Laws 1993, effective July 1, 1993, Rules 252:205–3–1 through 252:205–3–7 permanent effective June 11, 1999.

13. Hazardous Waste Combustors; Revised Standards; Final Rule—

Part 1: RCRA Comparable Fuel Exclusion; Permit Modifications for

Hazardous Waste Combustion Units; Notification of Intent to Comply;

Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Criteria for Compliance

Extensions [63 FR 33782–33829], June 19, 1998. (Checklist 168).

27A O.S. Supp. 1998 § 2–2–104 Added by Laws 1994, effective July 1,

1994, 27A O.S. Supp 1998 2–7–106 Amended by Laws 1993, effective July 1, 1993, Rules 252:205–3–1 through 252:205–3–7 permanent effective June 11, 1999.

E. What Decisions Has EPA Made?

We conclude that Oklahoma’s

application for program revision meets

all of the statutory and regulatory

requirements established by RCRA.

Therefore, we grant Oklahoma final

authorization to operate its hazardous

waste program as revised, assuming we

receive no adverse comments as

discussed above. Upon effective final

approval Oklahoma will be responsible

for permitting treatment, storage, and

disposal facilities within its borders

(except in Indian Country) and for

carrying out the aspects of the RCRA

program described in its revised

program application, subject to the

limitations of 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 Oklahoma, including

issuing permits, until the State is

granted authorization to do so.

F. How Do the Revised State Rules

Differ From the Federal Rules?

In this authorization of the State of

Oklahoma’s program revisions for RCRA

Cluster VIII, there are no provisions that

are more stringent or broader in scope.

Broader in scope requirements are not

part of the authorized program and EPA

can not enforce them.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 29983

G. Who Handles Permits After This

Authorization Takes Effect?

The EPA will administer any RCRA

permits or portions of permits it has

issued to facilities in the State until the

State becomes authorized. At the time

the State program is authorized for new

rules, EPA will transfer all permits or

portions of permits issued by EPA to the

State. The EPA will not issue any more

permits or portions of permits for the

provisions listed in this document after

the effective date of this authorization.

The EPA will continue to implement

and issue permits for HSWA

requirements for which the State is not

yet authorized.

H. Why Wasn’t There a Proposed Rule

Before Today’s Notice?

The EPA is authorizing the State’s

changes through this immediate final

action and is publishing this rule

without a prior proposal to authorize

the changes because EPA believes it is

not controversial we expect no

comments that oppose this action. The

EPA is providing an opportunity for

public comment now. In addition, in the

proposed rules section of today’s

Federal Register we are publishing a

separate document that proposes to

authorize the State changes. If EPA

receives comments opposing this

authorization, that document will serve

as a proposal to authorize the changes.

I. Where Do I Send My Comments and

When Are They Due?

You should send written comments to

Alima Patterson, Regional Authorization

Coordinator, Grants and Authorization

Section (6PD–G), Multimedia Planning

and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6,

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–

2733, (214) 665–8533. Please refer to

Docket Number OK–00–2. We must

receive your comments by June 9, 2000.

You will not have an opportunity to

comment again. If you want to comment

on this action, you must do so at this

time.

J. What Happens If EPA Receives

Comments Opposing This Action?

If EPA receives comments opposing

this authorization, we will publish a

second Federal Register document

before the immediate final rule takes

effect. The second document will

withdraw the immediate final rule or

identify the issues raised, respond to the

comments, and affirm that the

immediate final rule will take effect as

scheduled.

K. When Will This Approval Take

Effect?

Unless EPA receives comments

opposing this action, this final

authorization approval will become

effective without further notice on July

10, 2000.

L. Where Can I Review the State’s

Application?

You can review and copy the State of

Oklahoma’s application from 8:30 a.m.

to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday at the

following addresses: Oklahoma

Department of Environmental Quality,

707 North Robinson, Oklahoma City,

Oklahoma 73101–1677, (405) 702–

7180–7180 and EPA, Region 6 Library,

12th Floor, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202–2733, (214) 665–6444. For

further information contact Alima

Patterson, Region 6 Authorization

Coordinator, Grants and Authorization

Section (6PD–G), Multimedia Planning

and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6,

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–

2733, (214) 665–8533.

M. How Does Today’s Action Affect

Indian Country in Oklahoma?

Oklahoma is not authorized to carry

out its Hazardous Waste Program in

Indian Country within the State. This

authority remains with EPA. Therefore,

this action has no effect on Indian

Country.

N. What Is Codification?

Codification is the process of placing

the State’s statutes and regulations that

comprise the State’s authorized

hazardous waste program into the CFR.

The EPA does this by referencing the

authorized State rules in 40 CFR part

272. The EPA reserves the amendment

of 40 CFR part 272, Subpart LL for this

codification of Oklahoma’s program

changes until a later date.

Regulatory Requirements

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this rule from the

requirements of section 3 of Executive

Order 12866.

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 OMB 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.

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No.

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 involved technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

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, the

EPA 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

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 cost-effective or least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objective 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

29984 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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. The EPA has determined that sections

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 of Oklahoma’s program,

and today’s action dos 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 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 Treatment, Storage, Disposal,

Facilities, 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 organization, 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 action 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 Treatment, Storage,

Disposal, Facilities 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

3006 those existing State requirements.

Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

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. The EPA submitted

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

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

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.

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

cost incurred by the tribal governments.

If EPA complies with consulting,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

provide to OMB, 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 governments.

The State of Oklahoma is not authorized

to implement the RCRA hazardous

waste program in Indian country. This

action has no effect on the hazardous

waste program that EPA implements in

the Indian country within the State.

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

impose 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 29985

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. The 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 action does not have federalism

implication. 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 it

affects only one State. This action

simply approves Oklahoma’s proposal

to be authorized for updated

requirements of the hazardous waste

program that the State has voluntarily

chosen to operate. Further, requirements

of the hazardous waste program that the

State has voluntarily chosen to operate.

Further, as result of this action, those

newly authorized provisions of the

State’s program now apply in the State

of Oklahoma in lieu of the equivalent

Federal program provisions

implemented by EPA under HSWA.

Affected parties are subject only to those

authorized State 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Hazardous materials transportation,

Hazardous waste, Indian lands,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water pollution control,

Water supply.

Authority: This notice 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: March 30, 2000.

Jerry Clifford,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 00–11560 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 11, 73, and 74

[MM Docket No. 00–10; FCC 00–115]

Establishment of a Class A TV Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document implements

the Community Broadcasters Protection

Act of 1999, which directs the FCC to

establish a Class A television service to

provide a measure of primary status to

certain low-power television stations.

This document addresses a wide range

of issues related to the implementation

of the statute, including the protected

service area of Class A stations, Class A

interference protection requirements vis

a vis other TV stations, eligibility

criteria for Class A status, common

ownership restrictions applicable to

Class A stations, the treatment of

modification applications filed by Class

A licensees, and general operating

requirements.

DATES: Effective July 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim

Matthews, Policy and Rules Division,

Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418–2130, or

Keith Larson, Office of the Bureau Chief,

Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418–2600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Report

and Order (‘‘R&O’’), FCC 00–115,

adopted March 28, 2000; released April

4, 2000. The full text of the

Commission’s R&O is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Dockets

Branch (Room TW–A306), 445 12 St.

SW., Washington, DC. The complete

text of this R&O may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services

(202) 857–3800, 1231 20th St., NW.,

Washington, DC 20036.

Synopsis of Report and Order

I. Introduction

1. In this R&O, we establish a Class A

television service to implement the

Community Broadcasters Protection Act

of 1999 (CBPA), which was signed into

law November 29, 1999, Pursuant to the

CBPA and our implementing rules,

certain qualifying low-power television

(LPTV) stations will be accorded Class

A status. Class A licensees will have

‘‘primary’’ status as television

broadcasters, thereby gaining a measure

of protection from full-service television

stations, even as those stations convert

to digital format. The LPTV stations

eligible for Class A status under the

CBPA and our rules provide locallyoriginated programming, often to rural

and certain urban communities that

have either no or little access to such

programming. LPTV stations are owned

by a wide variety of licensees, including

minorities and women, and often

provide ‘‘niche’’ programming to

residents of specific ethnic, racial, and

interest communities. The actions we

take today will facilitate the acquisition

of capital needed by these stations to

allow them to continue to provide free,

over-the-air programming, including

locally-originated programming, to their

communities. In addition, by improving

the commercial viability of LPTV

stations that provide valuable

programming, our action today is

consistent with our fundamental goals

of ensuring diversity and localism in

television broadcasting.

II. Background

2. From its creation by the

Commission in 1982, the low power

television service has been a ‘‘secondary

spectrum priority’’ service whose

members ‘‘may not cause objectionable

interference to existing full-service

stations, and . . . must yield to facilities

increases of existing full-service stations

or to new full-service stations where

interference occurs. Currently, there are

approximately 2,200 licensed LPTV

stations in approximately 1,000

communities operating in all 50 states.

These stations serve both rural and

urban audiences. Because they operate

at reduced power levels, LPTV stations

serve a much smaller geographic region

than full-service stations and can fit into

areas where a higher power station

cannot be accommodated in the Table of

Allotments. In many cases, LPTV

stations may be the only television

station in an area providing local news,

weather, and public affairs

programming. Even in some well-served

markets, LPTV stations may provide the

only local service to residents of

discrete geographical communities

within those markets. Many LPTV

stations air ‘‘niche’’ programming, often

locally produced, to residents of specific

ethnic, racial, and interest communities

within the larger area, including

programming in foreign languages.

3. In the CBPA, Congress found that

the future of low-power television is

uncertain. Because LPTV stations have

secondary spectrum status, they can be

displaced by full-service TV stations

that seek to expand their own service

area, or by new full-service stations

seeking to enter the same market. The

statute finds that this regulatory status

affects the ability of LPTV stations to