36844 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

1981, these regulations are exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act (94 Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-.612)). However, the requirements ofthe Acthave been taken into consideration, and for the reasons discussed above these regulations are not expected to have significant econonic impact on small'entities.

In consideration ofthe foregoing, Part 117 ofTitle 33 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended by revising paragraph (a), (d), and (e) of § 117.660 to read as follows:

PART 117-DRAWBRIDGE" OPERATION REGULATIONS

§ 117.660 Root River,Racine, Wisconsin, Main Street and State Street Bridges.

(a) The draws shall open on signal, except as follows:

(1)Main Street Bridge. (I]From April 1 through December 1 from 6 a.m. to 6p.m. the drawneed open only on signal every 20 minutes (on the hour, 20 minutes after the hour,-and. 20 minutes before the hour). The draw shall remain open long enough during these periods of time to allow,all awaiting vessels to safely pass.

(i) From December 2 through March 31 the draw shall open on signal ifat least'two hours notice is given.

(2)State Street Bridge. From October 16 through April 30 the draw shall open
on signal ifat least two hours noti e is given.

(d)The'draws shall open as soon as possible for public vessels ofthe United States, state or local government vessels engaged in public safety orlaw enforcement activities, commercial vessels and vessels in distress even though the closed periods as specified in paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) ofthis section

are in effect. (e) The owner ofor agency controlling these bridges shallkeep a copy ofthese regulations conspicuously posted both upstream and downstream, either on the bridges or elsewhere in such a manner that it can be easily read from an approaching vessel at all times, with instructions stating exactly how notice is to be given to the authorized representative ofthe bridge owner to effect an opening during the periods of closure specified inparagraphs (a) (1) and (2) ofthis section. (33 U.S.C. 499, 49 U.S.C. 1655(g)(2]; 49 CFR 1.46(c)(5), 33 CFR 1.05-1(g)(3))
Henry H. Bell, RearAdmiral,CoastGuard,Commander, Ninth CoastGurdDistrict.

JFRDo=. 81-20882Filed 7-15-81; 8:45,amj BILUNG CODE 4910,14-M ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 123

[SW-10-FRL-1871-8]

Hazardous Waste Management Programs: Phase I Interim Authorization forOregon
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency,Region X. ACTION: Final rule: Approval ofState" Program.

SUMMARY: The State of Oregon has applied forinterim authorization ofits hazardous waste program under Subtitle C ofthe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and EPA guidelines for the approval ofState hazardous waste programs (40CFR Part 123). EPAhas determined that the State's program meets all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and is granting Phase Iinterim authorization to Oregon to operate ahazardous waste program. in lieu ofPhase Iofthe Federal hazardous waste program in its jurisdiction. The practical effect ofthis decision is that generators, transporters, and owners and operators ofhazardous
waste management facilities in Oregon will be subject to the State ofOregon's hazardous waste program in lieu ofthe Federal hazardous waste program (40 CFR Parts 260-263 and 265) and will not againbe subject toPhase Iofthe Federal Program unless: (1) The State fails to obtain final authorization by-the deadline specified in Section 3006(c) of RCRA and implementing regulations, or (2) authorization is withdrawn for cause by EPA.

EFFECTIVE DATE:July 16, 1981.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. David Hanline, Waste Management Branch M/S 520, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101; (206) 442-1260 orFTS 399-1260. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of-this notice is to grant Phase.I Interim Authorization to the State of Oregon forits hazardous waste management program. Inthe May 19, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 33063), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgatedoregulations, pursuant to Subtitle C ofthe Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), to protect human health and the environment from the improper management ofhazardous wastes. Included in these regulations, which became effective on November 19, 1980,

were provisions for a transitional phase during which States could be granted interim program authorization provided that State programs were determined to be substantially equivalent to the Federal program. Theinterim authorization program is being implemented m two phases corresponding to the tWo stages in which the underlying Federal program takes effect.

On September 16, 1980, the State of Oregon applied toEPA for Phase I interim authorization ofits hazardous waste management program, On October 16, 1980, EPAissued in the Federal Register (45FR 68693] a notice ofthe public comment period on the State's application. All comments received during this period have been noted and considered, as discussed below. Continuing discussions between the State and EPAresulted In a request from the State on January 13, 1981, to extend the review period ofthe application in order that certain authorities and activities not documented in the September 16 application could be submitted for EPA's consideration. This material was received by EPA onFebruary 5,1981. An announcement ofthe public comment period forthe additional material was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 1981 (46 FR 13242). However, no public comments were received on this additional material.
I. EPA's Major Concerns

In reviewing Oregon's Interim authorization application, EPAraised several concerns about whether Oregon's hazardous waste management program was substantially eqdlvalent to the Federal program. After careful consideration ofthese points, EPA has deternuned that while some ofthem represent discrepancies between the corresponding aspects ofthe State and Federal programs, none constitutes a significant gap in Oregon's ability to properly manage hazardous wastes during theinterim period. Following is a discussion ofthese points and EPA's basis for determining that they ought not to preclude Phase Iinterim authorization.

1. UniverseofWastesRegulated

In considering the universe of hazardous wastes,regulated under Oregon's program, three issues were highlighted as potential problem areasOregon's exclusion ofwastes from the leather tanning industry and the primary aluminum industry from regulation; Oregon's exemption of shipments under 2,000 lbs. from manifest, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; and Oregon's exemption from regulation under the hazardous waste program of

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 36844 1981Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

radioactive materials which may also be defined as "hazardous."

First, in the Federal Register of October 30, 1980 (45FR 72024), EPA excluded wastes from the leather tanning idustry from the hazardous
-wastelisting (the constituenit ofconcern being trivalent chromium). Also, the October 30 amendments suspend the listing ofwastes from theprimary aluminum industry from the Federal regulations, since primary aluminum reductionfalls under the exclusion for "extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals" provided by the Solid Waste Disposal ActAmendments of1980, Pub.L. 96-482.

Second, even with the exemptions from the manifesting, recordkeepmg, and reportingxequirements for shipments under2,000 lbs., Oregon's rules stillrequire that the waste go to hazardous waste facilities. Applicable rules also specify requirements for packaging waste and labeling containers for shipment.Furthermore, waste management facilities in Oregon are required toreport all receipts of hazardous waste whether ornotthe wastes are subject tomanifest requirements.

Third, Oregon's hazardous waste management program does not control radioactive wastes, regardless ofany other "hazardous" properties ofthe
wastes. Authority for regulation of radioactive wastes rests with the State Department ofEnergy and the Health Division.However, EPA isnot aware of anywastes in Oregon which are radioactive andwould also be defined

ashazardous forsome other reason. 2.InterimStatusStandards(ISS)- Unlicensed Facilities
With the exception offacilities utilizing surface impoundments, Oregon does not atpresent require hazardous
waste licenses ofon-site treatment and storage facilities. However, through its generator requirements,.Oregon does require compliance by such facilities with standards substantially equivalent
to the ISS.

Furthermore, generators cannot store hazardous waste forlonger than six months without approval from the State. This approval is based ortwhether there is a potential forreuse or recycling within areasonabletime frame. In their interim authorization application, the State agreed to seek voluntary" compliance by firms with all of theISS. Furthermore, the State agreed to undertake compliance inspections of facilities.which returnedPart A permit applications, but are unlicensed in Oregon, on a bi-yearlybasis. 3.InterimStatusStandards-Licensed Facilities

Licenses are required of disposal facilities, offsite treatment and storage facilities, andfacilities utilizing surface impoundments for management of hazardous wastes, and Oregon has sufficiently broad authority to apply the ISS to these facilities. Certain requirements included In the ISS were not specified in Oregon's rules, however, and were not included in existing licenses. Inresponse to EPA's concerns, the State has modified these licenses to incorporate standards substantially equivalent to the ISS.Furthermore, the State has committed to include the ISS in all new,renewed, and modified licenses issued after September 1,1980.


### I. Response to Public Comments

After an announcement in the Federal Register on October 16, 1980 (45 FR 68693), a public hearingwas held on Oregon's application inPortland on November 17,1980. At this time,it was decided that the comment periodwould remain open until November 24,1980. Comments were received from representatives of industry. Mostof the
commenters didnot address the specific requirements for authorization ofState programs, nor how Oregon's prograta compared to the Federal program. Rather, commenters were mainly concerned about the possibility of having duplicative State and Federal
programs, which had the potential for confusion and increased burden on those regulated.

While EPA is sympathetic to these
concerns, they do not get at the heart of the issue athand-whether Oregon's program, which would operate in lieu of the Federal program, is substantially equivalent to the Federal program. In the absence ofan authorized program in Oregon, EPA's approach to minimize duplication and confusion would have been to encourage the State to enterinto

a Cooperative Arrangement with EPA so that the State would help to administer the rederal program to the maximum
extent feasible. This approach would have maximized and thusmaintained direct contact between the State and regulated industry until authorization could be granted. Clearly, EPA's decision to grant Phase Iauthorization will go further to eliminate the potential for duplication and confusion.

Other comments focused on the Droblems faced by States in keeping abreast ofregulatory changes at the Federal level, suggesting it would be better to allow a State program with a history ofreal-world application to operate during the mterun authorization period until theFederalprogram gained greater stability. While there is merit to this argument, particularly considering the complexity ofthe Federal program

as ithas appeared i numerous issues of -theFederal Register, it too, begs the fundamental question ofwhether the State'sprogram is substantially equivalent to theFederal program.

A more pointed comment focused on a requirement in theFederal regulations that in landfilling,ignitable wastes must be treated, rendered, ormixed so that theresulting waste no longer meets the characteristic ofignitability (40 CFR 265.312). Itwas feltby this commenter that theprincipal hazardous waste disposal site m the area did not at the time have the capability tomcmerate or otherwise treat ignitable waste. On-site storage would be necessary forsome time,which would cause an increased potential for adverse environmental impacts and safetyproblems, as well as the need for a storage permit.The
commenter concluded that interim authorization should therefore be granted since there is no similar requirement in effect atthe State level. Consequently, theproblems which were noted would not arise.

Thisconcern is one which was brought to EPA's attention bymany generators and landfill operators commenting on theFederal regulations ofMay 19, 1980, in which the requirement first appeared. Inresponse to this concern, on February 20,1981 (46 FR 13492), EPA amended this .requirement, suspending itfor liquid ignitable wastes in containers untilMay 19, 1981. Thepreamble to theFebruary 20 amendment gives considerable detail

on this topic.EPA extended this suspension ohJune 29,1981 (46FR 33502). As a consequence of the suspension, theissue raised relative to interim authorization in Oregon has been addressed.

Finally,two commenters in support of granting interim authorization to Oregon emphasized that in somerespects the universe ofhazardous wastes regulated under Oregon's program is more strngent than thatregulated by the Federal program. Examples notedwere
a broader corrosivity characteristic and certain small generator cut-offs which

are more restrictive. Such areas of relatively greater stringency do suggest

a comprehensive definition ofhazardous
wastes in Oregon. EPA's conclusion that the discrepancies between Oregon's definition ofhazardous wastes and the Federal definition ofhazardous wastes do notcomprise significant gapsin the universe ofwastes regulated in Oregon, has led EPA tojudge Oregon's definition 36845

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 36845 198136846 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 1981 / Rules and Regulations

of hazardous waste to be substantially, equivalent to the Federal universe.

III. Decision

EPA has reviewed the State of Oregon's complete application forPhase Iinterim authorization and has determined that the State program is "substantially equivalent" to the Phase I Federal program as defined in 40 CFR Part 123, Subpart'F. In accordance with Section 3006(c) ofRCRA, the State of Oregon is hereby granted interim authorization to operate a hazardous waste program in lieu ofPhase I ofthe Federal hazardous waste program. The practical effect ofthis decision is that generators, transporters, and owners and operators ofhazardous waste management facilities m Oregon will be subject to the State of Oregon's hazardous waste program inlieu ofthe Federal hazardous waste program (40 CFR Parts 260-263 and 265) and will not again bo subject toPhase I ofthe Federal program unless: (1)The State fails to obtain final authorization by the deadline specified in 3006(c) ofRCRA andimplementing regulations, or (2) authorization is withdrawn for case by EPA.

IV. Compliance With Executive Order 12291

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA mustprepare a Regulatory Impact Analysis on "major regulahons" A' "major regulation" is defined as "any regulation thatis likely to result in:

(1)An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;

(2) Amajor increase m costs orprices for consumers, individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or

(3) Significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment; productivity, innovation, oron the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets."

EPA's decision to approve Oregon's Phase I hazardous waste program is not

a major regulation because its effect Is to suspend the applicability ofcertain Federal regulations m the State of Oregon. In the absence ofthis decision, persons handling hazardous waste in Oregon would have to comply with Parts 260-263 and 265 ofTitle 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations in addition
to all Oregonhazardous waste management regulations. For this reason it is virtually inconceivable that this regulation would result in the significant impacts that characterize a "major regulation."

This regulation was submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budgetfor review as required by Executive Order '12291.
Authority

This notice is issued under the authority ofSections 2002(a), 3006, and 70041b) ofthe SolidWaste Disposal Act,

as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of1976,

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

Dated: May 20, 1981. L.Edwin Coate, ActingRegionalAdmirnstrator.

[FRDom 81-2003 Filed 7-15-81; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 6560-30-M

40 CFR Part 123

[SW-4-FRL 1872-2]

Hazardous Waste Management Program; Phase I Interim Authorization for Tennessee
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency,Region IV

ACTION: Final rule: Approval ofState Program.

SUMMARY: The State ofTennessee has' applied forinterim authorization ofits hazardous waste program under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and EPA guidelines for the approval ofState hazardous waste programs (40 CFR Part 123). EPA has determined that the State's program meets all applicable, statutory and regulatory requirements andis granting Phase Iinterim authorization to Tennessee to operate a hazardous waste program in lieu of Phase I ofthe Federil hazardous waste program in itsjurisdiction. The practical effect ofthis decision is thatgenerators, transporters, and owners and operators ofhazardous waste management facilities in Tennessee willbe subjectto the State ofTennessee hazardous waste program in lieu ofthe Federal hazardous waste program (40 CFR Parts 260-263 and 265) and will not again be subject to Phase I ofthe Federal program unless: (1) The State fails to obtain,final authorization by the deadline specified in section 3006(c) ofRCRA and; implementing regulations, or (2) authorization is withdrawn for cause by EPA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July16,1981.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas C. McCurry, Residuals , Management Branch, U.S. EPA, Region IV, 345 Courtland Street,NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365, Telephone (404) 881- 3016. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

In the May 19, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 33063), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated regulations, pursuant to Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of1976 (RCRA), to protect human health and the environment from the improper management ofhazardous
wastes. The Act (RCRA) includes provisions whereby a State agency may be authorized by EPA to administer the hazardous waste program In that State in lieu ofa Federally administered
program. For a State program to receive final authorization, its hazardous waste program must be fully equivalent to and consistent with the Federal program under RCRA. In order to expedite the authorization ofState programs, RCRA allows EPA to grant a State agency interim authorization ifitsprogram is substantially equivalent to the Federal
program. During interim authoil~zatlon, a State can make whatever legislative or regulatory changes that may be needed for the State's hazardous waste program to become fully equivalent to the Federal program. The interim authorization program will be implemented in two phases corresponding to the two stages in which the underlying Federal program will take effect.

The State ofTennessee submitted Its draft application forPhase I Interim authorization on September 8,1980. After detailed review, EPA identified several areas ofmajor concern and transmitted comments to the State for Its consideration. The State subsequently made revisions to its application for Phase I interim authorization in order to clarify those aspects ofits program which had been questioned during the EPAreview.

On October 30, 1980, Tennessee submitted to EPA a final application for Phase I interim authorization under RCRA. EPA Headquarters and Regional personnel conducted an.analysis of Tennessee's hazardous waste program, The following issues were raised by the review teams:

(a)Tennessee's hazardous waste legislationlimits the ability ofthe State
program officials to inspect generators,

(b) The State statutues do not permit the State to share proprietary information with EPA,

(c) The State's universe ofwaste is
not identical ofEPA's. (d) The State's delisting procedures

are not substantially equivalent.

(e) The Attorney General does not provide assurances that the State will
not oppose citizen intervention in the enforcement process on the grounds that

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 36846 1981