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 of the Act have 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 of the foregoing, Part

117 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal

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 6 p.m. the draw need 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 if at

least'two hours notice is given.

(2) State Street Bridge. From October

16 through April 30 the draw shall open

on signal if at least two hours noti e is

given.

(d) The'draws shall open as soon as

possible for public vessels of the United

States, state or local government vessels

engaged in public safety or law

enforcement activities, commercial

vessels and vessels in distress even

though the closed periods as specified in

paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section

are in effect.

(e) The owner of or agency controlling

these bridges shall keep a copy of these

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 of the bridge owner to

effect an opening during the periods of

closure specified in paragraphs (a) (1)

and (2) of this 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, Coast Guard, Commander,

Ninth Coast Gurd District.

JFR Do=. 81-20882 Filed 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 for Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency, Region X.

ACTION: Final rule: Approval of State"

Program.

SUMMARY: The State of Oregon has

applied for interim authorization of its

hazardous waste program under Subtitle

C of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act and EPA guidelines for the

approval of State hazardous waste

programs (40 CFR Part 123). EPA has

determined that the State's program

meets all applicable statutory and

regulatory requirements and is granting

Phase I interim authorization to Oregon

to operate ahazardous waste program.

in lieu of Phase I of the Federal

hazardous waste program in its

jurisdiction. The practical effect of this

decision is that generators, transporters,

and owners and operators of hazardous

waste management facilities in Oregon

will be subject to the State of Oregon's

hazardous waste program in lieu of the

Federal hazardous waste program (40

CFR Parts 260-263 and 265) and will not

again be subject to Phase I of the

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 for its hazardous waste

management program. In the May 19,

1980, Federal Register (45 FR 33063), the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

promulgatedoregulations, pursuant to

Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), to

protect human health and the

environment from the improper

management of hazardous 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. The interim

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 to EPA for Phase I

interim authorization of its hazardous

waste management program, On

October 16, 1980, EPA issued in the

Federal Register (45 FR 68693] a notice

of the 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 EPA resulted In a request

from the State on January 13, 1981, to

extend the review period of the

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 on February 5,1981. An

announcement of the public comment

period for the 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, EPA raised

several concerns about whether

Oregon's hazardous waste management

program was substantially eqdlvalent to

the Federal program. After careful

consideration of these points, EPA has

deternuned that while some of them

represent discrepancies between the

corresponding aspects of the State and

Federal programs, none constitutes a

significant gap in Oregon's ability to

properly manage hazardous wastes

during the interim period. Following is a

discussion of these points and EPA's

basis for determining that they ought not

to preclude Phase I interim

authorization.

1. Universe of Wastes Regulated

In considering the universe of

hazardous wastes, regulated under

Oregon's program, three issues were

highlighted as potential problem areasOregon's exclusion of wastes 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 1981
Federal 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 (45 FR 72024), EPA

excluded wastes from the leather

tanning idustry from the hazardous

-waste listing (the constituenit of concern

being trivalent chromium). Also, the

October 30 amendments suspend the

listing of wastes from the primary

aluminum industry from the Federal

regulations, since primary aluminum

reduction falls under the exclusion for "extraction, beneficiation, and

processing of ores and minerals"

provided by the Solid Waste Disposal

Act Amendments of 1980, Pub. L. 96-482.

Second, even with the exemptions

from the manifesting, recordkeepmg,

and reportingxequirements for

shipments under 2,000 lbs., Oregon's

rules still require 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 to report all receipts of

hazardous waste whether or not the

wastes are subject to manifest

requirements.

Third, Oregon's hazardous waste

management program does not control

radioactive wastes, regardless of any

other "hazardous" properties of the

wastes. Authority for regulation of

radioactive wastes rests with the State

Department of Energy and the Health

Division. However, EPA is not aware of

any wastes in Oregon which are

radioactive and would also be defined

as hazardous for some other reason.

2. Interim Status Standards (ISS)-

Unlicensed Facilities

With the exception of facilities

utilizing surface impoundments, Oregon

does not at present require hazardous

waste licenses of on-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 for longer than six

months without approval from the State.

This approval is based ortwhether there

is a potential for reuse or recycling

within a reasonabletime frame. In their

interim authorization application, the

State agreed to seek voluntary"

compliance by firms with all of the ISS.

Furthermore, the State agreed to

undertake compliance inspections of

facilities.which returned Part A permit

applications, but are unlicensed in

Oregon, on a bi-yearly basis.

3. Interim Status Standards-Licensed

Facilities

Licenses are required of disposal

facilities, offsite treatment and storage

facilities, and facilities 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. In response 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 hearing was held on

Oregon's application in Portland on

November 17,1980. At this time, it was

decided that the comment period would

remain open until November 24,1980.

Comments were received from

representatives of industry. Most of the

commenters did not address the specific

requirements for authorization of State

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 at hand-whether Oregon's

program, which would operate in lieu of

the Federal program, is substantially

equivalent to the Federal program. In the

absence of an authorized program in

Oregon, EPA's approach to minimize

duplication and confusion would have

been to encourage the State to enter into

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 thus maintained

direct contact between the State and

regulated industry until authorization

could be granted. Clearly, EPA's

decision to grant Phase I authorization

will go further to eliminate the potential

for duplication and confusion.

Other comments focused on the

Droblems faced by States in keeping

abreast of regulatory changes at the

Federal level, suggesting it would be

better to allow a State program with a

history of real-world application to

operate during the mterun authorization

period until the Federal program gained

greater stability. While there is merit to

this argument, particularly considering

the complexity of the Federal program

as it has appeared i numerous issues of

-the Federal Register, it too, begs the

fundamental question of whether the

State's program is substantially

equivalent to the Federal program.

A more pointed comment focused on a

requirement in the Federal regulations

that in landfilling, ignitable wastes must

be treated, rendered, or mixed so that

the resulting waste no longer meets the

characteristic of ignitability (40 CFR

265.312). It was felt by this commenter

that the principal hazardous waste

disposal site m the area did not at the

time have the capability to mcmerate or

otherwise treat ignitable waste. On-site

storage would be necessary for some

time, which would cause an increased

potential for adverse environmental

impacts and safety problems, 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 at the State level.

Consequently, the problems which were

noted would not arise.

This concern is one which was

brought to EPA's attention by many

generators and landfill operators

commenting on the Federal regulations

of May 19, 1980, in which the

requirement first appeared. In response

to this concern, on February 20,1981 (46

FR 13492), EPA amended this

.requirement, suspending it for liquid

ignitable wastes in containers until May

19, 1981. The preamble to the February

20 amendment gives considerable detail

on this topic. EPA extended this

suspension oh June 29,1981 (46 FR

33502). As a consequence of the

suspension, the issue raised relative to

interim authorization in Oregon has

been addressed.

Finally, two commenters in support of

granting interim authorization to Oregon

emphasized that in some respects the

universe of hazardous wastes regulated

under Oregon's program is more

strngent than that regulated by the

Federal program. Examples noted were

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 of hazardous

wastes in Oregon. EPA's conclusion that

the discrepancies between Oregon's

definition of hazardous wastes and the

Federal definition of hazardous wastes

do not comprise significant gaps in the

universe of wastes regulated in Oregon,

has led EPA to judge Oregon's definition

36845

HeinOnline -- 46 Fed. Reg. 36845 1981
36846 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 for Phase

I interim 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) of RCRA, the State of

Oregon is hereby granted interim

authorization to operate a hazardous

waste program in lieu of Phase I of the

Federal hazardous waste program. The

practical effect of this decision is that

generators, transporters, and owners

and operators of hazardous waste

management facilities m Oregon will be

subject to the State of Oregon's

hazardous waste program in lieu of the

Federal hazardous waste program (40

CFR Parts 260-263 and 265) and will not

again bo subject to Phase I of the

Federal program unless: (1) The State

fails to obtain final authorization by the

deadline specified in 3006(c) of RCRA

and implementing regulations, or (2)

authorization is withdrawn for case by

EPA.

IV. Compliance With Executive Order

12291

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA

must prepare a Regulatory Impact

Analysis on "major regulahons" A' "major regulation" is defined as "any

regulation that is likely to result in:

(1) An annual effect on the economy of

$100 million or more;

(2) A major increase m costs or prices for

consumers, individual industries; Federal,

State, or local government agencies, or

geographic regions; or

(3) Significant adverse effects on

competition, employment, investment;

productivity, innovation, or on 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 of certain

Federal regulations m the State of

Oregon. In the absence of this decision,

persons handling hazardous waste in

Oregon would have to comply with

Parts 260-263 and 265 of Title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations in addition

to all Oregon hazardous 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 of Management and Budget for

review as required by Executive Order

'12291.

Authority

This notice is issued under the

authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006, and

70041b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,

as amended by the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,

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

6974.

Dated: May 20, 1981.

L. Edwin Coate,

Acting RegionalAdmirnstrator.

[FR Dom 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 of State

Program.

SUMMARY: The State of Tennessee has'

applied for interim authorization of its

hazardous waste program under Subtitle

C of the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA) and EPA

guidelines for the approval of State

hazardous waste programs (40 CFR Part

123). EPA has determined that the

State's program meets all applicable,

statutory and regulatory requirements

and is granting Phase I interim

authorization to Tennessee to operate a

hazardous waste program in lieu of

Phase I of the Federil hazardous waste

program in its jurisdiction. The practical

effect of this decision is that generators,

transporters, and owners and operators

of hazardous waste management facilities in Tennessee will be subject to

the State of Tennessee hazardous waste

program in lieu of the Federal hazardous

waste program (40 CFR Parts 260-263

and 265) and will not again be subject to

Phase I of the 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:

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 of 1976 (RCRA), to protect human

health and the environment from the

improper management of hazardous

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 of a 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 of State programs, RCRA

allows EPA to grant a State agency

interim authorization if its program 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 of Tennessee submitted Its

draft application for Phase I Interim

authorization on September 8,1980.

After detailed review, EPA identified

several areas of major 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 of its program

which had been questioned during the

EPA review.

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 of the 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 of waste is

not identical of EPA'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