Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 59435 

so that EPA can withdraw this direct 

final rule and address the comment in 

the proposed rulemaking. This action 

may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements 

(see section 307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 25, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(442) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(442) New and amended regulations 

for the following APCDs were submitted 

on February 10, 2014 by the Governor’s 

Designee. 

(i) Incorporation by Reference. 

(A) Imperial County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 101, ‘‘Definitions,’’ revised on 

October 22, 2013. 

(B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Rule 1020, ‘‘Definitions,’’ amended 

on February 21, 2013. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–23400 Filed 10–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0247; FRL–9917–38– 

Region 10] 

Revision to the Idaho State 

Implementation Plan; Approval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans: Idaho, Northern 

Ada County PM10 Second Ten-Year 

Maintenance Plan and Pinehurst PM10

Contingency Measures 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the Northern 

Ada County PM10 Second Ten-Year 

Maintenance Plan submitted by the 

Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality (IDEQ) on March 11, 2013, for 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to ten 

micrometers (PM10). Northern Ada 

County was identified as an area of 

concern for PM10 with the promulgation 

of the PM10 NAAQS in 1987, and was 

formally designated as a moderate PM10

nonattainment area upon passage of the 

1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments. 

In October 2003, the EPA approved the 

Northern Ada County PM10

Maintenance Plan and redesignated the 

area to attainment for PM10. This revised 

Maintenance Plan addresses 

maintenance of the PM10 standard for a 

second ten-year period beyond 

redesignation through 2023, extends the 

horizon years, and contains revised 

transportation conformity budgets. The 

EPA is also approving the February 15– 

16, 2011 high wind exceptional event at 

the Boise Fire Station monitor, as well 

as contingency measures for the 

Pinehurst PM10 Air Quality 

Improvement Plan. The EPA is 

approving the second ten-year PM10

Maintenance Plan for Northern Ada 

County and the Pinehurst PM10

contingency measures pursuant to 

section 110 of the CAA. The EPA is 

approving the February 2011 

exceptional event pursuant to 40 CFR 

50.14. The EPA received one set of 

adverse comments focused primarily on 

proposed coal export terminals that may 

be built in Oregon and Washington that 

may affect Northern Ada County. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 3, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR– 

2013–0247. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, i.e., 

Confidential Business Information or 

other information the disclosure of 

which is restricted by statute. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted 

material, is not placed on the Internet 

and will be publicly available only in 

hard copy form. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, 

and Toxics, AWT–107, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The 

EPA requests that you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lucy Edmondson at (360)753–9082 or 

Edmondson.lucy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Northern Ada County was identified 

as an area of concern for PM10 with the 

promulgation of the PM10 NAAQS in 

1987, and was formally designated as a 

moderate PM10 nonattainment area 

upon passage of the 1990 CAA 

amendments. Idaho developed a state 

implementation plan (SIP) and 

submitted it to the EPA in November 

1991, later submitting revisions in 

December 1994 and July 1995. The EPA 

approved the Northern Ada County 

PM10 SIP on May 30, 1996 (61 FR 

27019). Idaho submitted a maintenance 

plan and a request to redesignate the 

area to attainment on September 27, 

2002, and provided supplemental 

information on July 10 and 21, 2003. On 

October 27, 2003, the EPA approved the 

Northern Ada County PM10

Maintenance Plan and redesignated the 

area to attainment status for PM10 (68 FR 

61106). 

In actions dated August 25, 1994 (59 

FR 43475) and May 26, 1995 (60 FR 

27891), the EPA conditionally approved 

the SIP for the Pinehurst, Idaho PM10

nonattainment area. The conditional 

approval concluded that IDEQ had not 

satisfied the requirement for 

contingency measures for both the City 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59436 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

NAAQS and Regional Haze Regulations—EPA–454/ 

R–05–001. August, 2005, updated November 2005 

(hereafter ‘‘emissions inventory guidance’’ or 

‘‘guidance’’). 

2Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment. John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management Division to 

Regional Air Directors, September 4, 1992. 

of Pinehurst and the Pinehurst 

Expansion area. The EPA set a deadline 

of July 20, 1995 for IDEQ to submit the 

required contingency measures. IDEQ 

met the established deadline with its 

submission ‘‘Contingency Measures for 

the Pinehurst PM10 Air Quality 

Improvement Plan,’’ dated July 13, 

1995. 

On September 23, 2013, IDEQ 

submitted documentation in accordance 

with the Exceptional Events Rule (40 

CFR 50.14) to demonstrate that the 

monitored PM10 values on February 15– 

16, 2011 at the Boise monitor were due 

to a high wind event and resulting dust 

storm that originated in Nevada. The 

EPA proposed approval of this 

maintenance plan and the Pinehurst 

Contingency Measures on February 20, 

2014 (79 FR 9697). 

II. Response to Comments 

On March 24, 2014, the EPA received 

one set of comments opposing the EPA’s 

proposed approval of Northern Ada 

County PM10 Second Ten-Year 

Maintenance Plan (Ada County PM10

plan). The comments were focused on 

the potential impact that possible coal 

export terminals, proposed to be built in 

the Pacific Northwest, could have on 

PM10 concentrations in the maintenance 

area. These comments are similar to 

comments previously submitted on 

February 22, 2013, related to emissions 

impacts of locomotive coal transport in 

the emissions inventory for the Tacoma 

fine particulate (PM2.5) nonattainment 

area (78 FR 32131, May 29, 2013) and 

comments submitted on March 10, 

2014, related to the Kent, Seattle, and 

Tacoma Second 10-Year PM10 Limited 

Maintenance Plan (79 FR 49239, August 

20, 2014). The EPA responded to these 

comments in the May 29, 2013 and 

August 20, 2014 final rulemakings. Due 

to the specific focus of today’s action, 

the EPA is only addressing those 

comments directly relevant to the Ada 

County PM10 plan. 

A. Calculating Growth in Locomotive 

Traffic 

Comment: The commenter requested 

that the EPA disapprove the Ada County 

PM10 plan because the plan relied on 

general growth factors in estimating 

future railroad traffic without 

consideration of future growth 

associated with proposed coal export 

terminals that may be built in Oregon 

and Washington. 

Response: The EPA guidance 

regarding development of emissions 

inventories requires states to consider 

reasonably anticipated growth in 

emission sources such as increased 

vehicle miles traveled, population 

growth, and possible emissions growth 

at permitted stationary sources.1 None 

of the projects in question are far 

enough along in their development that 

the scope or impact of their emissions 

can be estimated with any degree of 

certainty. In this case, the Washington 

State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 

and/or the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) processes for coal 

export proposals cited in the March 24, 

2014 letter are ongoing. It is not known 

whether the facilities will be 

constructed, and if they are constructed, 

the size and scope of operations that 

would be authorized. In addition, as the 

commenter notes, there are several 

possible rail routes that could be used 

in the future and it is not known 

whether locomotive traffic associated 

with coal shipments would traverse or 

bypass the Ada County maintenance 

area or, as may be the case, whether 

routes would constantly vary based on 

decisions by the rail operator. Given the 

range of uncertainty surrounding the 

proposed terminals, including whether 

the terminals will be constructed, the 

location (s) of such terminals and 

decisions of terminal and railway 

operators that would affect rail routes, 

the EPA believes it would be 

unreasonable to disapprove the Ada 

County PM10 plan on the basis that the 

emissions inventory did not estimate 

potential future events that may or may 

not impact the maintenance area. 

Should any of these coal export 

facilities be built in the future, both the 

EPA and the State have the authority 

under the EPA’s longstanding guidance 

regarding contingency measures to 

reexamine emissions inventories and 

establish additional control measures if 

a noticeable impact on PM10 levels in 

Ada County were to occur.2

B. Calculating Fugitive Dust Impacts 

From Coal Export Locomotive Traffic 

Comment: The commenter noted 

Washington State’s Kent, Seattle, and 

Tacoma Second 10-Year PM10 Limited 

Maintenance Plan submittal which 

included a calculation of estimated 

fugitive coal dust emissions as part of 

the 2011 baseline emissions inventory 

for that area (Docket No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2013–0713)(Kent, Seattle, and 

Tacoma PM10 plan). The commenter 

requested that the EPA disapprove the 

Ada County PM10 plan because it did 

not contain a comparable estimate of 

fugitive coal dust emissions. 

Response: A key difference between 

the Washington and Idaho plans is that 

there is already coal-related locomotive 

activity through the Washington 

maintenance areas on the way to export 

through Canada, captured as part of the 

2011 baseline emissions inventory. The 

commenter provides no compelling 

evidence to suggest that Ada County 

experiences similar Canadian export 

traffic like Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma. 

Instead the commenter’s focus is on 

proposed export terminals that may or 

may not be built in Oregon and 

Washington. As noted above, 

consideration of potential, future 

impacts of projects that may or may not 

be built is not a reasonable basis for 

disapproving the Ada County PM10

plan. The EPA also notes that the 

commenter raised several issues specific 

to the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma PM10

plan fugitive dust estimation 

methodology which are not germane to 

the Ada County PM10 plan and therefore 

not addressed here. 

Comment: The Commenter noted that 

modeling conducted by the Sierra Club 

of the potential impacts of the proposed 

Ambre Energy Coyote Island Terminal 

in Morrow predicts elevated PM2.5

emissions. The commenter indicates 

that results for PM2.5 could be assumed 

to be PM10 and that this information is 

enough to conclude that there would be 

high levels of PM10 emissions that could 

result in exceedances in Ada County. 

Response: The Tran Modeling 

analysis evaluated potential emissions 

from the proposed Ambre Energy 

Coyote Island Terminal in Morrow, 

Oregon and calculated emissions near 

the facility at values above the NAAQS. 

Given the uncertainty surrounding the 

proposed Morrow Terminal, including 

whether the facility will be constructed, 

the EPA believes it would be 

unreasonable to disapprove the Ada 

County PM10 Maintenance Plan on the 

basis of this modeling analysis. In 

addition, because the modeling predicts 

emission levels near the facility in 

Oregon, the EPA believes it is 

unreasonable to draw conclusions about 

how these emissions could affect Ada 

County, Idaho. Should this facility be 

built in the future, both the EPA and the 

state have the authority under the EPA’s 

longstanding guidance regarding 

contingency measures to establish 

additional control measures if a 

noticeable impact on PM10 levels in Ada 

County were to occur. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 59437 

III. Final Action 

The EPA is taking final action to 

approve the Northern Ada County PM10

Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan and 

Pinehurst PM10 Contingency Measures. 

This action approves and incorporates 

into the SIP the PM10 control measures 

submitted by IDEQ on March 11, 2013 

and July 13, 1995, respectively. The 

EPA is also approving the February 15– 

16, 2011 high wind exceptional event at 

the Boise Fire Station monitor. 

Provisions describing state or local 

enforcement authority are not 

incorporated into the SIP to avoid 

potential conflict with the EPA’s 

independent authorities. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

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 will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 1, 

2014. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 11, 2014. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart N—Idaho 

■ 2. In § 52.670, paragraph (e), the table 

entitled ‘‘EPA–APPROVED IDAHO 

NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND 

QUASI–REGULATORY MEASURES’’ is 

amended by adding two new entries at 

the end of the table. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 52.670 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Northern Ada County PM10

Second Ten-Year Maintenance Plan.

Northern Ada County ............. 3/11/13 10/2/14 [Insert FR citation].

Pinehurst PM10 Contingency 

Measures.

Pinehurst/Shoshone County .. 7/13/95 10/2/14 [Insert FR citation].


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59438 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 3. Section 52.672 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e)(2) and adding 

paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 52.672 Approval of plans. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) EPA approves as a revision to the 

Idaho State Implementation Plan, the 

Northern Ada County PM10 Second TenYear Maintenance Plan adopted by the 

State on March 11, 2013. 

(3) EPA approves as a revision to the 

Idaho State Implementation Plan, the 

Pinehurst PM10 Contingency Measures, 

adopted by the State on July 13, 1995. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–23365 Filed 10–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 271 and 272 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2012–0793; FRL–9916– 

02–Region 6] 

Arkansas: Final Authorization of StateInitiated Changes and Incorporation by 

Reference of State Hazardous Waste 

Management Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: During a review of Arkansas’ 

regulations, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) identified a 

variety of State-initiated changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). We have determined that 

these changes are minor and satisfy all 

requirements needed to qualify for Final 

authorization and are authorizing the 

State-initiated changes through this 

Direct Final action. 

The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 

amended, commonly referred to as the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA), allows the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize 

States to operate their hazardous waste 

management programs in lieu of the 

Federal program. The EPA uses the 

regulations entitled ‘‘Approved State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Programs’’ to provide notice of the 

authorization status of State programs 

and to incorporate by reference those 

provisions of the State statutes and 

regulations that will be subject to the 

EPA’s inspection and enforcement. The 

rule codifies in the regulations the prior 

approval of Arkansas’ hazardous waste 

management program and incorporates 

by reference authorized provisions of 

the State’s statutes and regulations. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

December 1, 2014, unless the EPA 

receives adverse written comment on 

the codification of the Arkansas 

authorized RCRA program by the close 

of business November 3, 2014. If the 

EPA receives such comments, it will 

publish a timely withdrawal of this 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that this rule will 

not take effect. The incorporation by 

reference of authorized provisions in the 

Arkansas statutes and regulations 

contained in this rule is approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register as of 

December 1, 2014 in accordance with 5 

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by 

one of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2 Email: patterson.alima@epa.gov or 

banks.julia@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Alima Patterson, Region 6, 

Regional Authorization Coordinator, or 

Julia Banks, Codification Coordinator, 

State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD–O), 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to Alima Patterson, 

Region 6, Regional Authorization 

Coordinator, or Julia Banks, Codification 

Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight 

Section (6PD–O), Multimedia Planning 

and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2012– 

XXXX. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change, 

including personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http://

www.regulations.gov, or email. The 

Federal http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. (For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/

dockets.htm). 

You can view and copy the 

documents that form the basis for this 

authorization and codification and 

associated publicly available materials 

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

through Friday at the following location: 

EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, phone 

number: (214) 665–8533 or (214) 665– 

8178. Interested persons wanting to 

examine these documents should make 

an appointment with the office at least 

two weeks in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alima Patterson, Region 6 Regional 

Authorization Coordinator, or Julia 

Banks, Codification Coordinator, State/

Tribal Oversight Section (6PD–O), 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

Phone numbers: (214) 665–8533 and 

(214) 665–8178, and Email address: 

patterson.alima@epa.gov or 

banks.julia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authorization of State-Initiated 

Changes 

A. Why are revisions to State programs 

necessary? 

States which have received Final 

authorization from the 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, the States 

must change their programs and ask the 

EPA to authorize the changes. Changes 

to State hazardous waste 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 the EPA’s regulations in 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 

124, 260 through 268, 270, 273 and 279. 

States can also initiate their own 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES