45568 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

volume weighted average NOX

emissions of imported conventional

gasoline for a multi-year period

(MYANOx). This calculation:

(i) Shall use the Phase II Complex

Model;

(ii) Shall include all conventional

gasoline in the following categories:

(A) Imported conventional gasoline

that is classified as conventional

gasoline, and included in the

conventional gasoline compliance

calculations of importers for each year;

and

(B) Imported conventional gasoline

that is classified as certified FRGAS,

and included in the conventional

gasoline compliance calculations of

foreign refiners for each year;

(iii)(A) In 2000 only, shall be for the

1998 and 1999 averaging periods and

also shall include all conventional

gasoline classified as FRGAS and

included in the conventional gasoline

compliance calculations of a foreign

refiner for 1997, and all conventional

gasoline batches not classified as

FRGAS that are imported during 1997

beginning on the date the first batch of

FRGAS arrives at a United States port of

entry; and

(B) Starting in 2001, shall include

imported conventional gasoline during

the prior three calendar year averaging

periods.

(2)(i) If the volume-weighted average

NOX emissions (MYANOx), calculated in

paragraph (p)(1) of this section, is

greater than 1,465 mg/mile, the

Administrator shall calculate an

adjusted baseline for NOX according to

the following equation:

ABNOx = 1,465 mg/mile ¥ (MYANOx ¥

1,465 mg/mile)

where:

ABNOx = Adjusted NOX baseline, in mg/

mile

MYANOx = Multi-year average NOX

emissions, in mg/mile

(ii) For the 1998 and 1999 multi-year

averaging period only the value of

ABNOx shall not be larger than 1,480 mg/

mile regardless of the calculation under

paragraph (p)(2)(i) of this section.

(3)(i) Notwithstanding the provisions

of § 80.91(b)(4)(iii), the baseline NOX

emissions values applicable to any

United States importer who has not

been assigned an individual importer

baseline under § 80.91(b)(4) shall be the

more stringent of the statutory baseline

value for NOX under § 80.91(c)(5), or the

adjusted NOX baseline calculated in

paragraph (p)(2) of this section.

(ii) On or before June 1 of each

calendar year, the Administrator shall

announce the NOX baseline that applies

to importers under this paragraph (p). If

the baseline is an adjusted baseline, it

shall be effective for any conventional

gasoline imported beginning 60 days

following the Administrator’s

announcement. If the baseline is the

statutory baseline, it shall be effective

upon announcement. A baseline shall

remain in effect until the effective date

of a subsequent change to the baseline

pursuant to this paragraph (p).

(q) Withdrawal or suspension of a

foreign refinery’s baseline. EPA may

withdraw or suspend a baseline that has

been assigned to a foreign refinery

where:

(1) A foreign refiner fails to meet any

requirement of this section;

(2) A foreign government fails to

allow EPA inspections as provided in

paragraph (i)(1) of this section;

(3) A foreign refiner asserts a claim of,

or a right to claim, sovereign immunity

in an action to enforce the requirements

in 40 CFR part 80, subparts D, E and F;

or

(4) A foreign refiner fails to pay a civil

or criminal penalty that is not satisfied

using the foreign refiner bond specified

in paragraph (k) of this section.

(r) Early use of a foreign refinery

baseline. (1) A foreign refiner may begin

using an individual refinery baseline

before EPA has approved the baseline,

provided that:

(i) A baseline petition has been

submitted as required in paragraph (b)

of this section;

(ii) EPA has made a provisional

finding that the baseline petition is

complete;

(iii) The foreign refiner has made the

commitments required in paragraph (i)

of this section;

(iv) The persons who will meet the

independent third party and

independent attest requirements for the

foreign refinery have made the

commitments required in paragraphs

(f)(3)(iii) and (h)(7)(iii) of this section;

and

(v) The foreign refiner has met the

bond requirements of paragraph (k) of

this section.

(2) In any case where a foreign refiner

uses an individual refinery baseline

before final approval under paragraph

(r)(1) of this section, and the foreign

refinery baseline values that ultimately

are approved by EPA are more stringent

than the early baseline values used by

the foreign refiner, the foreign refiner

shall recalculate its compliance, ab

initio, using the baseline values

approved by EPA, and the foreign

refiner shall be liable for any resulting

violation of the conventional gasoline

requirements.

(s) Additional requirements for

petitions, reports and certificates. Any

petition for a refinery baseline under

paragraph (b) of this section, any report

or other submission required by

paragraphs (c), (f)(2), or (i) of this

section, and any certification under

paragraph (d)(3) or (g)(1)(ii) of this

section shall be:

(1) Submitted in accordance with

procedures specified by the

Administrator, including use of any

forms that may specified by the

Administrator.

(2) Be signed by the president or

owner of the foreign refiner company, or

in the case of (g)(1)(ii) the vessel owner,

or by that person’s immediate designee,

and shall contain the following

declaration:

I hereby certify: (1) that I have actual

authority to sign on behalf of and to bind

[insert name of foreign refiner or vessel

owner] with regard to all statements

contained herein; (2) that I am aware that the

information contained herein is being

certified, or submitted to the United States

Environmental Protection Agency, under the

requirements of 40 CFR part 80, subparts D,

E and F and that the information is material

for determining compliance under these

regulations; and (3) that I have read and

understand the information being certified or

submitted, and this information is true,

complete and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief after I have taken

reasonable and appropriate steps to verify the

accuracy thereof.

I affirm that I have read and understand

that the provisions of 40 CFR part 80,

subparts D, E and F, including 40 CFR 80.94

(i), (j) and (k), apply to [insert name of foreign

refiner or vessel owner]. Pursuant to Clean

Air Act section 113(c) and Title 18, United

States Code, section 1001, the penalty for

furnishing false, incomplete or misleading

information in this certification or

submission is a fine of up to $10,000, and/

or imprisonment for up to five years.

[FR Doc. 97–22803 Filed 8–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 268 and 271

[FRL–5884–2]

RIN 2050–AD38

Second Emergency Revision of the

Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)

Treatment Standards for Listed

Hazardous Wastes From Carbamate

Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA, the Agency).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: This second emergency

revision extends the time that the

alternative carbamate treatment
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 45569

standards are in place by one additional

year. The Agency is taking this action

because analytical problems associated

with the measurement of constituent

levels in carbamate waste residues have

not yet been resolved.

EFFECTIVE DATES: This action becomes

effective on August 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Supporting materials are

available for viewing in the RCRA

Information Center (RIC), located at

Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson

Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington,

VA. The Docket Identification Number

is F–96–P32F–FFFFF. The RIC is open

from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except for Federal holidays. The

public must make an appointment to

review docket materials by calling (703)

603–9230. The public may copy a

maximum of 100 pages from any

regulatory document at no cost.

Additional copies cost $0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, contact the RCRA

Hotline at 800–424–9346 (toll-free) or

703–412–9810 locally. For technical

information on the carbamate treatment

standards, contact Shaun McGarvey,

phone 703–308–8603. For information

on analytic problems associated with

carbamate wastes, contact John Austin

on 703–308–0436. For information on

State Authorization, contact Wayne

Roepe on 703–308–8630. For specific

information about this rule, contact

Rhonda Minnick on 703–308–8771.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of rule on Internet

This Federal Register notice is

available on the Internet System through

the EPA Public Web Page at: http://

www.epa.gov/EPA–WASTE/. For the

text of the notice, choose: Year/Month/

Day.

I. Background

The Phase III final rule established

treatment standards for hazardous

wastes associated with carbamate

pesticide production (61 FR 15583; see

appendix for a list of regulated

constituents). The treatment standards

were expressed as concentration levels

that had to be monitored in the

treatment residue. All constituents were

placed on the Universal Treatment

Standard (UTS) list. These regulations

were issued on April 8, 1996 (61 FR

15663), and corrected June 28, 1996 (61

FR 33683). The prohibition on land

disposal of carbamate wastes was

effective July 8, 1996 and the

prohibition on radioactive waste mixed

with newly listed or identified wastes,

including soil and debris, was effective

April 8, 1998.

On November 1, 1996, the United

States Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia Circuit, in Dithiocarbamate

Task Force v. EPA (98 F.3d 1394),

vacated certain of the listings of

carbamate wastes. Accordingly, EPA

removed from the Code of Federal

Regulations those listings vacated by the

court and all references to those listings.

EPA notes that substantial portions of

the decisions made in the carbamate

listing rule remain in effect and are not

changed by the court’s ruling. See 62 FR

32973, June 17, 1997.

The court vacated the listings of 24 U

wastes, one K-waste (K160), and three of

the K-wastes (K156, K157 and K158)

only to the extent they apply to the

chemical, 3-iodo-2-propynyl nbutylcarbamate (IPBC). Twenty-three of

the vacated U wastes consisted of all the

dithiocarbamates and thiocarbamates.

The other vacated U waste was IPBC, a

carbamate.

This notice applies only to the

carbamate wastes that remain listed as

hazardous wastes. Carbamates that were

regulated as UHCs were unaffected by

the courts decision, because the

decision didn’t deal with adding

carbamates as underlying hazardous

constituents.

After promulgation of the Phase III

rule on April 8, 1996, but shortly before

the treatment standards took effect on

July 8, 1996, several companies in the

waste management industry contacted

EPA, reporting that laboratory standards

were not available for some of the

carbamate waste constituents. The

Agency confirmed this assertion, and

realized that the waste management

industry was unintentionally left in a

quandary: they were required to certify

compliance with the carbamate waste

treatment standards, but commercial

laboratories were only able to perform

the necessary analyses for some of the

newly regulated constituents. Thus, it

was impossible to document whether

the treatment standards were or were

not achieved for those constituents

which could not be analyzed.

The problem was complicated by the

LDR rules that pertain to regulation of

underlying hazardous constituents

(UHCs) in characteristic (or formerly

characteristic) hazardous wastes.

Because new constituents were added to

the UTS list, they thus became potential

UHCs. Whenever a generator sends a

characteristic (or formerlycharacteristic) waste to a treatment

facility, they must identify for treatment

not only the hazardous characteristic,

but also all UHCs reasonably expected

to be present in the waste at the point

of generation. (See 40 CFR 268.2(i).)

Because of the lack of laboratory

standards for all carbamate constituents,

generators could not in all cases identify

the UHCs reasonably expected to be

present in their wastes, and treatment

facilities and EPA could not monitor

compliance with the standards for the

carbamate UHCs. Generators also

reported that commercial laboratories

were unable to provide the

recommended methods.

II. The Revised Carbamate Treatment

Standards

In an emergency final rule

promulgated on August 26, 1996 (61 FR

43924), EPA established temporary

alternative treatment standards for

carbamate wastes for a one-year period.

EPA believed that one year was

sufficient time for laboratory standards

to be developed and for laboratories to

take appropriate steps to do the

necessary analyses for these wastes.

The Phase III rule required treatment

of carbamate wastes to UTS levels. The

temporary alternative standards

promulgated in the August 26, 1996 rule

provided waste handlers a choice of

meeting the Phase III treatment levels,

or of using a specified treatment

technology, the specified standard being

the technology upon whose

performance the numerical treatment

standard was based. (See 61 FR 43925,

August 26, 1996.) Combustion was the

specified technology for

nonwastewaters; combustion,

biodegradation, chemical oxidation, and

carbon adsorption are the specified

technologies for wastewaters. If the

wastes were treated by a specified

technology, there was no requirement to

measure compliance with treatment

levels, thus avoiding the analytical

problems.

III. Today’s Extension of the Alternative

Treatment Standard Provision

EPA is extending the alternative

treatment standards for carbamate

wastes for one additional year. EPA and

the regulated community initially

expected that laboratory standards

would be developed during the past

year, but that appears not to be the case

for all carbamate constituents.

Furthermore, there appears to be

confusion as to which analytical

methods can be used to measure

carbamate constituents. (See

memorandum from Kevin Igli, Waste

Management, Inc., to James Berlow,

EPA, dated July 16, 1997, in the docket

for this rule.)

The waste treatment industry has

begun a testing project that will

determine whether existing analytical

methods can be extended to apply to all

carbamate constituents. (See August 8,
45570 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1997 letter from Kevin Igli, Waste

Management, Inc., to Michael Petruska,

EPA.) The Agency believes that much

can be learned from this study. EPA

estimates it will take four to six months

to conduct this study, and then

additional time to review the results. If

the study verifies that analytical

problems remain, EPA may issue an

appropriate notice seeking comment,

and then a final rule modifying the

standard. This would all take

approximately 1 year. If EPA finds there

are no serious analytical difficulties,

however, the Agency may consider

reinstating the numeric standard sooner

than 1 year.

Since the analytical problems which

necessitated the 1996 emergency rule

remain, however, EPA is allowing the

alternative treatment standards to

remain in place until the study is

completed and the results factored into

a final decision on whether to retain the

alternative treatment standards

permanently or to revert to the exclusive

numerical standards promulgated in the

Phase III rule. (The Agency’s general

preference is to establish numerical

treatment standards for hazardous

wastes whenever possible because they

provide maximum flexibility in

selecting treatment technologies, while

ensuring that the technologies are

optimally operated to achieve full waste

treatment.)

Under the alternative treatment

standards, combustion is the specified

technology for nonwastewaters;

combustion, biodegradation, chemical

oxidation, and carbon adsorption are the

specified technologies for wastewaters.

(Descriptions of these treatment

technologies can be found in 40 CFR

268.42, Table 1.) If the wastes are

treated by a specified technology, there

is no requirement to measure

compliance with treatment levels.

Because the performance of these Best

Demonstrated Available Technologies

(BDATs) were the basis of the originally

promulgated treatment levels, EPA

believes that temporarily allowing the

use of these BDATs for an additional

year—without a requirement to monitor

the treatment residues—fully satisfies

the core requirement of the LDR

program: Hazardous wastes must be

treated to minimize threats to human

health and the environment before they

are land disposed.

The Agency is also suspending for an

additional year inclusion of carbamate

waste constituents on the UTS list at 40

CFR 268.48. Not including these

constituents on the UTS list eliminates

the need to identify and treat them, and

monitor compliance with their UTS

levels, when they are present as UHCs

in characteristic hazardous wastes. The

Agency believes that suspending the

carbamate constituents from the UTS

list will not have adverse environmental

consequences because it will be in effect

for only one additional year.

Furthermore, EPA found in the Phase III

rulemaking that these constituents are

unlikely to occur in wastes generated

outside the carbamate production

industry (61 FR 15584, April 8, 1996),

so today’s rule may not cause an adverse

environmental impact because

carbamate constituents simply are not

present in most characteristic hazardous

wastes.

IV. Good Cause for Foregoing Notice

and Comment Requirements

This final rule is being issued without

notice and opportunity for public

comment. Under the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B), an agency may forgo notice

and comment in promulgating a rule

when, according to the APA, the agency

for good cause finds (and incorporates

the finding and a brief statement of the

reasons for that finding into the rules

issues) that notice and public comments

procedures are impracticable,

unnecessary, or contrary to the public

interest. For the reasons set forth below,

EPA believes it has good cause to find

that notice and comment would be

unnecessary and contrary to the public

interest, and therefore is not required by

the APA.

First, although both industry and EPA

have endeavored to resolve the problem

during the past year, analytic laboratory

standards will continue to be

unavailable for a number of the

carbamate waste constituents covered

by the Phase III rule. Members of the

regulated community thus cannot fully

document compliance with the

requirements of the treatment standard

through no fault of their own. For the

same reason, EPA cannot ascertain

compliance for these constituents.

In addition, this unavailability of

analytic standards is likely to create a

serious disruption in the production of

at least some carbamate pesticides.

Although the treatment of the restricted

carbamate wastes through

biodegradation, carbon adsorption,

chemical oxidation (for wastewaters),

and combustion is both possible and

highly effective, certification that the

treatment actually meets the treatment

standard levels may not be possible in

many instances. Without the

certification, disposal of the residuals

left after treatment cannot legally occur.

The Agency believes this situation will

quickly impede production of certain

pesticides, since legal disposal of some

carbamate wastes will no longer be

available. See Steel Manufacturers Ass’n

v. EPA, 27 F.3d 642, 646–47 (D.C. Cir.

1994) (absence of a treatment standard

providing a legal means of disposing of

wastes from a process is equivalent to

shutting down that process). With

regard to the suspension of certain

carbamates as underlying hazardous

constituents in characteristic (and

formerly-characteristic) prohibited

wastes, the Agency believes that the

same practical difficulties described for

listed carbamate wastes would be

created.

Furthermore, the Agency believes it is

necessary for industry to complete a

study project that will provide answers

to the questions raised about the

availability of analytical standards and

which analytical methods are

appropriate for carbamate wastes. This

study will require a number of months

to be completed, and then the Agency

must make a decision about whether or

not to retain the alternative treatment

standards.

This extension of the emergency rule

preserves the core of the promulgated

Phase III rule by ensuring that the

restricted carbamate wastes are treated

by a BDAT before they are land

disposed. At the same time, EPA is

eliminating the situation which could

halt production of carbamate pesticides,

and allowing time for a study project to

be completed. For these reasons, EPA

believes there is good cause to issue the

rule immediately without prior notice

and opportunity for comment.

V. Rationale for Immediate Effective

Date

The Agency believes that the

regulated community is in the untenable

position of having to comply with

treatment standards but lacks analytical

methods to measure compliance. To

avoid this result, therefore, this

extension needs to take effect essentially

immediately. In addition, today’s rule

does not create additional regulatory

requirements; rather, it provides greater

flexibility for compliance with

treatment standards. For these reasons,

EPA finds that good cause exists under

section 3010(b)(3) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

6903(b)(3), to provide for an immediate

effective date. See generally 61 FR at

15662. For the same reasons, EPA finds

that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(3) to waive the requirement that

regulations be published at least 30 days

before they become effective.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 45571

VI. Analysis Under Executive Order

12866, the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act of 1995, the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule does not create new

regulatory requirements; rather, it

provides a temporary alternative means

to comply with the treatment standards

already promulgated. Therefore, this

final rule is not a ‘‘significant’’

regulatory action within the meaning of

Executive Order 12866.

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.

Today’s rule contains no Federal

mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for

State, local, or tribal governments or the

private sector, and does not impose any

Federal mandate on State, local, or tribal

governments or the private sector within

the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995. This final rule does

not create new regulatory requirements;

rather, it provides a temporary

alternative means to comply with the

treatment standards already

promulgated. EPA has determined that

this rule does not contain a Federal

mandate that may result in expenditures

of $100 million or more for State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or the private sector in any one year.

Thus, today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA. For the same reasons, EPA

has determined that this rule contains

no regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments.

EPA has determined that this rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. EPA recognizes that small

entities may own and/or operate

carbamate pesticide manufacturing

operations or TSDFs that will become

subject to the requirements of the land

disposal restrictions program. However,

since such small entities are already

subject to the requirements in 40 CFR

part 268, this rule does not impose any

additional burdens on these small

entities, because this rule does not

create new regulatory requirements.

Rather, it provides a temporary

alternative means to comply with the

treatment standards already

promulgated.

Therefore, EPA provides the following

certification under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, as amended by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act. Pursuant to the provision

at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that

this final rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. It does not

impose any new burdens on small

entities. This rule, therefore, does not

require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Today’s rule does not contain any

new information collection

requirements subject to OMB review

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Because

there are no new information collection

requirements in today’s rule, an

Information Collection Request has not

been prepared.

VII. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by section

804(2) of the APA as amended.

VIII. State Authority

A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized

States

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA

may authorize qualified States to

administer and enforce the RCRA

program within the State. Following

authorization, EPA retains enforcement

authority under sections 3008, 3013,

and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized

States have primary enforcement

responsibility. The standards and

requirements for authorization are

found in 40 CFR part 271.

Prior to HSWA, a State with final

authorization administered its

hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA

administering the Federal program in

that State. The Federal requirements no

longer applied in the authorized State,

and EPA could not issue permits for any

facilities that the State was authorized

to permit. When new, more stringent

Federal requirements were promulgated

or enacted, the State was obliged to

enact equivalent authority within

specified time frames. New Federal

requirements did not take effect in an

authorized State until the State adopted

the requirements as State law.

In contrast, under RCRA section

3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new

requirements and prohibitions imposed

by HSWA take effect in authorized

States at the same time that they take

effect in unauthorized States. EPA is

directed to carry out these requirements

and prohibitions in authorized States,

including the issuance of permits, until

the State is granted authorization to do

so.

Today’s rule is being promulgated

pursuant to section 3004(m), of RCRA

(42 U.S.C. 6924(m)). Therefore, the

Agency is adding today’s rule to Table

1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which identifies

the Federal program requirements that

are promulgated pursuant to HSWA.

States may apply for final authorization

for the HSWA provisions in Table 1, as

discussed in the following section of

this preamble.

B. Effect on State Authorization

As noted above, EPA will implement

today’s rule in authorized States until

they modify their programs to adopt

these rules and the modification is

approved by EPA. Because today’s rule

is promulgated pursuant to HSWA, a

State submitting a program modification

may apply to receive interim or final
45572 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

authorization under RCRA section

3006(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on

the basis of requirements that are

substantially equivalent or equivalent to

EPA’s. The procedures and schedule for

State program modifications for final

authorization are described in 40 CFR

271.21. All HSWA interim

authorizations will expire January 1,

2003. (See section 271.24 and 57 FR

60132, December 18, 1992.)

In general, EPA recommends that

States pay close attention to the sunset

date for today’s rule. If States are

adopting the Phase III rule before the

sunset date of today’s rule, and applying

for authorization, EPA strongly

encourages these States to adopt today’s

rule when they adopt the April 8, 1996,

Phase III rule. States should note that

after the sunset date, the provisions of

this rule may be considered less

stringent if the Agency decides to

disallow use of the alternative treatment

standards. If so, States would be barred

under section 3009 of RCRA from

adopting this rule after August 26, 1998,

and would not be able to receive

authorization for it. States that are

planning to adopt and become

authorized for today’s rule and the

Phase III rule should factor the sunset

date into their rulemaking activities.

Appendix to the Preamble—List of Regulated

Constituents

K156—Organic waste (including heavy ends,

still bottoms, light ends, spent solvents,

filtrates, and decantates) from the

production of carbamates and carbamoyl

oximes. (This listing does not apply to

wastes generated from the manufacture

of 3-iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate)

K157—Wastewaters (including scrubber

waters, condenser waters, washwaters,

and separation waters) from the

production of carbamates and carbamoyl

oximes. (This listing does not apply to

wastes generated from the manufacture

of 3-iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate.)

K158—Bag house dust, and filter/separation

solids from the production of carbamates

and carbamoyl oximes. (This listing does

not apply to wastes generated from the

manufacture of 3-iodo-2-propynyl nbutylcarbamate.)

K159—Organics from the treatment of

thiocarbamate wastes.

K161—Purification solids (including

filtration, evaporation, and

centrifugation solids), baghouse dust,

and floor sweepings from the production

of dithiocarbamate acids and their salts.

(This listing does not include K125 or

K126.)

P203 Aldicarb sulfone

P127 Carbofuran

P189 Carbosulfan

P202 m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate

P191 Dimetilan

P198 Formetanate hydrochloride

P197 Formparanate

P192 Isolan

P196 Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate

P199 Methiocarb

P066 Methomyl

P190 Metolcarb

P128 Mexacarbate

P194 Oxamyl

P204 Physostigmine

P188 Physostigmine salicylate

P201 Promecarb

P185 Tirpate

P205 Ziram

U394 A2213

U280 Barban

U278 Bendiocarb

U364 Bendiocarb phenol

U271 Benomyl

U279 Carbaryl

U372 Carbendazim

U367 Carbofuran phenol

U395 Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate

U373 Propham

U411 Propoxur

U387 Prosulfocarb

U410 Thiodicarb

U409 Thiophanate-methyl

U389 Triallate

U404 Triethylamine

Additional chemicals from carbamate

production regulated in 40 CFR 268.48

Butylate

EPTC

Dithiocarbamates, total

Molinate

Pebulate

o-Phenylenediamine

Vernolate

List of Subjects

40 CFR part 268

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR part 271

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Hazardous materials transportation,

Hazardous waste, Penalties, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: August 21, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL

RESTRICTIONS

1. The authority citation for part 268

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,

and 6924.

SUBPART D—TREATMENT

STANDARDS

2. Section 268.40 is amended by

revising the dates in paragraph (g) to

read ‘‘Between August 26, 1997 and

August 26, 1998’’.

3. Section 268.48(a) is amended by

revising the dates in footnote 6 to the

table—Universal Treatment Standards

to read ‘‘Between August 26, 1997 and

August 26, 1998’’.

PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR

AUTHORIZATION OF STATE

HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS

4. The authority citation for part 271

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602; 33 U.S.C. 1321

and 1361.

SUBPART A—REQUIREMENTS FOR

FINAL AUTHORIZATION

5. Section 271.1(j) is amended by

adding the following entry to Table 1 in

chronological order by date of

publication in the Federal Register to

read as follows:

§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

Promulgation date Title of Regulation Federal Register reference Effective date

* * * * * * *

August 28, 1997 ........ Second Emergency Revision of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Phase III Treatment Standards for Listed

Hazardous Wastes from Carbamate Production.

62 FR [Insert page numbers].August 26, 1997 until August 26, 1998.

* * * * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 167 / Thursday, August 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 45573

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–22949 Filed 8–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 65

[Docket No. FEMA–7224]

Changes in Flood Elevation

Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Interim rule.

SUMMARY: This interim rule lists

communities where modification of the

base (1% annual chance) flood

elevations is appropriate because of new

scientific or technical data. New flood

insurance premium rates will be

calculated from the modified base flood

elevations for new buildings and their

contents.

DATES: These modified base flood

elevations are currently in effect on the

dates listed in the table and revise the

Flood Insurance Rate Map(s) in effect

prior to this determination for each

listed community.

From the date of the second

publication of these changes in a

newspaper of local circulation, any

person has ninety (90) days in which to

request through the community that the

Associate Director for Mitigation

reconsider the changes. The modified

elevations may be changed during the

90-day period.

ADDRESSES: The modified base flood

elevations for each community are

available for inspection at the office of

the Chief Executive Officer of each

community. The respective addresses

are listed in the following table.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frederick H. Sharrocks, Jr., Chief,

Hazard Identification Branch, Mitigation

Directorate, 500 C Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2796.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

modified base flood elevations are not

listed for each community in this

interim rule. However, the address of

the Chief Executive Officer of the

community where the modified base

flood elevation determinations are

available for inspection is provided.

Any request for reconsideration must

be based upon knowledge of changed

conditions, or upon new scientific or

technical data.

The modifications are made pursuant

to Section 201 of the Flood Disaster

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105,

and are in accordance with the National

Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.

4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR Part 65.

For rating purposes, the currently

effective community number is shown

and must be used for all new policies

and renewals.

The modified base flood elevations

are the basis for the floodplain

management measures that the

community is required to either adopt

or to show evidence of being already in

effect in order to qualify or to remain

qualified for participation in the

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP).

These modified elevations, together

with the floodplain management criteria

required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the

minimum that are required. They

should not be construed to mean that

the community must change any

existing ordinances that are more

stringent in their floodplain

management requirements. The

community may at any time enact

stricter requirements of its own, or

pursuant to policies established by other

Federal, State, or regional entities.

The changes in base flood elevations

are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule is categorically excluded

from the requirements of 44 CFR Part

10, Environmental Consideration. No

environmental impact assessment has

been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Associate Director for Mitigation

certifies that this rule is exempt from

the requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act because modified base

flood elevations are required by the

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,

42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to

maintain community eligibility in the

NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis

has been prepared.

Regulatory Classification

This interim rule is not a significant

regulatory action under the criteria of

Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of

September 30, 1993, Regulatory

Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism

This rule involves no policies that

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 12612, Federalism,

dated October 26, 1987.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform

This rule meets the applicable

standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12778.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65

Flood insurance, Floodplains,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is

amended to read as follows:

PART 65—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 65

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.;

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR,

1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367,

3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

§ 65.4 [Amended]

2. The tables published under the

authority of § 65.4 are amended as

follows:

State and county Location

Dates and name of newspaper where notice was

published

Chief executive officer of

community

Effective date of

modification

Community

No.

Arizona: Mohave .. City of Bullhead

City.

June 17, 1997, June 24,

1997, Mohave Valley

Daily News.

The Honorable Norm Hicks, Mayor,

City of Bullhead City, 1255 Marina

Boulevard, Bullhead City, Arizona

86442.

June 5, 1997 ....... 040125

California:

Riverside ....... City of Banning .... June 20, 1997, June 27,

1997, The Record-Gazette.

The Honorable Gary Reynolds,

Mayor, City of Banning, P.O. Box

998, Banning, California 92220.

June 5, 1997 ....... 060246

Marin ............. City of Novato ..... July 1, 1997, July 8,

1997, Marin Independent Journal.

The Honorable Pat Eklund, Mayor,

City of Novato, 900 Sherman Avenue, Novato, California 94945.

June 13, 1997 ..... 060178