34954 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 2, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

PART 200-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCALEDUCATIONAL AGENCIES TO MEET SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN
§200.56 [Amended]

Section 200.56 is amended by inserting "(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1810-0504)" after the citation of authority at the end ofthe section.

[FR Doc. 83-20825 Flied 8-1-83: 8:45 amt
BILUNG CODE 4000-01-

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271 [SW-4-FRL 2409-1]

Hazardous Waste Management Program;Tennessee; Request for Extension of Application Deadline for InterimAuthorization, Phase II, Components A, B, and C

AGENCY' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice ofExtension of Application Submission and Interim Authorization Period.

SUMMARY: On July 21, 1983, the State of Tennessee requested extensions ofthe deadline for submitting a complete Interim Authorization application under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of1976, as amended, for Phase II,Components A and B, until September 15, 1983, and for Phase II, Component C,until October'26, 1983. EPA is granting this extension. One effect ofthis action is to allow Tennessee to submit its application after July 26, 1983. It also avoids termination

on July-26 of the interim authorization which EPAgranted previously to the State for the Phase I portion ofthe hazardous waste program. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 25, 1983. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James H. Scarbrough, Chief, Residuals Management Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30365, Telephone (404) 881-3016.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

40 CFR 271.122(c)(4) (formerly § 123.122(c)(4); 47 FR 32377, July 26, 1982)requires that States which have received any but not all Phases/ Components of interim authorization amend their original submissions by July 26, 1983, to include all Components of Phase I. 40 CFR 271.137(a) (formerly § 123.137(a); 47 FR 32378, July 26, 1982) further provides that on July 26, 1983, interim authorizations terminate except where the State has submitted by that date an application for all Phases/ Components ofinterim authorization.

Where the authorization (approval) of the State program terminates, EPA is to administer and enforce the Federal program in those States. However, the Regional Administrator may, forgood

cause, extend the July 26, 1983, deadline for submission of the interim authorization application and the deadline for termination ofthe approval ofthe State program.

Note.-40 CFR Part 123, including the July 26, 1982 amendments (47FR 32373), was recodified on April 1, 1983, as 40 CFR Part 271 (48FR 14248).]

Tennessee received Phase Iinterim authcrization on July 16, 1981. However, Tennessee's ability to apply for Phase II, Components A, B, and C, interim authcrization before July 26, 1983, was delayed due to legislative changes during the 1983 Tennessee General Assembly and the adoption ofland disposal and liability insurance regulations. Tennessee has committed to the following schedule for applying for applying for authorization: -September 1983-Submit draft

application for Component C -September 1983-Submit final

application for Components A and B -September 1983-Hold a public

hearing on proposed land disposal and liability insurance regulations -October 1983-Request the Tennessee SolidWaste Disposal Control Board
to adopt theregulations -October 1983-Approval of

regulations by Tennessee Attorney General -October 1983-Submit complete

application forComponent C -December 1983-Submit draft Final

Authorization application

Decision

Or,July 25, 1983, in consideration of Tennessee's efforts to obtain the necessary legislation and regulations and the impact on the regulated community, Ifound there was good

cause to grant the State's request for the extensions beyond the deadline for applying forPhase II. Therefore, Tennessee must officially submit a complete application for Phase II, Components A, B, by September 15, 1983. and for Phase II, Component C, by Octcber 26, 1983. If the State fails to submit a complete application by these dates, approval of the State program will terminate automatically and administration ofthe hazardous waste management program will revert to EPA.

List of Subjects in40 CFR Part271

Hazardous materials, Indianlands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Confidential business information.
(Secs. 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b), Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act of1976,as amended (42U.S.C. 6912(a) and 6974(B)))

Dated: July 22, 1983. Charles R. Jeter, Regional Administrator.

FR Doc. 83-20843 Filed 8-1,-83;8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-0-M



### 40 CFR Part 271

[SW-10-FRL 2409-3] 

### Washington; Phase Iand Phase II, Components A and B,Interim Authorization'ofthe State Hazardous Waste Management Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Approval ofState Program.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provisions, the State of Washington has applied for interim authorization Phase Iand Phase 1I,Components A and B. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)has reviewed Washington's application forPhases Iand I, Components A and B, interim authorization, and has determined that Washington's hazardous waste program is substantially equivalent to the Federal
program covered by Phases I and II, Components A and B. The State of Washington is hereby granted interim authorization forPhases I and II, Components A and B to operate the State's hazardous waste program covered by these phases in lieu ofthe Federal program, except as to Indian lands.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 2, 1983.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Betty Wiese, Waste Management Branch, U.S.EPA, Region 10, 1200Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 442-2857.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### Background

In the May 19, 1980 Federal Register (45 FR 33063), theEPA promulgated regulations, pursuant to Subtitle C ofthe Resource Conservation and Recovery

HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 34954 1983

### Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 2, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

Act (RCRA) of 1976 (as amended), to protect human health and the environment from the improper management ofhazardous waste. Included in these regulations, which became effective November 19, 1980,

were provisions for a transitional stage in which States would be granted interim program authorization. Interim authorization willbe granted in two phases corresponding to the two stages in which the underlying Federal program takes effect.

EPA's Phase Iregulations (promulgated May 19, 1980) establish,
among other things: the initial identification and listing ofhazardous wastes; the standards applicable to generators and transporters of hazardous wastes, including a manifest system; and the "interim status" standards applicable to existing hazardous waste management facilities before they receive permits.

Inthe January 26, 1981 Federal Register (46 FR 7965), EPA announced the availability ofportions of the second phase ofinterim authorization. EPA's decision to make the second phase of interim authorization available in components was based on the desire to proceed with authorizing State programs

as expeditiously as possible and because some ofthe subparts ofthe Federal regulations containing standards for permitting hazardous
waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (40 CFR Part 264) were promulgated at different times rather than in one single promulgation as originally anticipated. Component A of Phase IIcontains standards for permitting containers, tanks and certain kinds of surface impoundments and waste piles. Component B contains standards for permitting hazardous
waste incinerators.

The Governor ofthe State of Washington submitted an application to EPA forPhase I and Phase II, Components A and B, interim suthorization on May 3,1982. The State chose not to submit a draft application
to EPA in advance ofthe formal application. EPA conducted an initial review ofthe application to determine whether it was complete; theEPA found the application to be incomplete, in part because the Attorney General's
statement wasincomplete. The application, also, did not identify the liability insurance requirements that would apply to permitted facilities. EPA alsoidentified a gap in the described scope and coverage ofhazardous waste

sources in the State-those energy tpcilities that are under thejurisdiction ofthe Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.

Pending receipt of documents and information to complete the application, EPA conducted a thorough review of the application as submitted to evaluate substantial equivalence with the Federal program. EPA's comments included requests for clarification orassurances regarding how certain aspects ofthe
program would be carried out, as discussed below. To complete the application and to respond to the questions and issues raised byEPA, the State submitted additional information and addenda to its application on September28, 1982, November 5, 1982, and November 19, 1982, including a completed, signedAttorney General's Statement.EPA determined these materials completed the application.

On December 22, 1982, EPA made the complete application available for public inspection andpublished a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on theWashington application forinterim authorization Phase I and Phase II, Components A and B ofthe hazardous waste management program at a public hearing tobe conducted byRegion 10 on January 25, 1983. The notice alsoinvited the public
to submit written comments to Region 10 by theclose ofthe public comment period, February 1, 1983. AsEPA conducted the formal review ofthe complete application, some additional questions arose for which further clarifications or assurances from the State were requested. As discussed below, on April I and June 20, 1983, EPA received additional assurances from the State to confirm and clarify information contained in the complete application.

Discussion

Washington's application, as initially submitted, demonstrated that the State's program satisfied many ofthe requirements for a substantially equivalent program. The following is a summary ofthemajor issues identified during the course ofEPA's review ofthe State's application and how the State amended the application torespond to EPA concerns:

1. TheroleoftheEnergyFacility Site EvaluationCouncil(EFSEC).

EFSEC pre-empts other State requirements in approving the construction and operation oflarge energy projects. EPA requested a description ofhow hazardous waste activity at these facilities would be regulated. In thecomplete application, the State demonstrated EFSEC's adoption ofthe hazardous waste regulations ofthe lead agency, the Department ofEcology (DOE); submitted 

### a Memorandum ofUnderstanding between EFSEC and DOE;provided a discussion ofEFSEC's authority to adopt rules; and provided a general description oftheEFSEC project certification process.The application included information describing hazardous waste activity at energy facilities. At thepresent time, hazardous waste activity at energy facilities under EFSEC'sjurisdiction is limited to possible intermittent generation at three facilities,but thereis no on-site hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal activity at these facilities. No change in the extent ofhazardous waste activity is expected in the foreseeable future. The Authorization Plan was also amended toinclude commitments for final authorization. In response to EPA's final comments, the State provided additional confirmation ofEFSEC authorities toregulate hazardous waste generators and a further description of EFSEC's participation inthe State's program. EFSEC also agreed to abide by the terms ofthe Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)withEPA with respect totheir regulation ofhazardous waste generators.

2. Universeofwasteregulated. EPA requested clarification regarding how

use ofthe State's dangerous waste criteria fordesignation and delisting of waste would assure regulation ofa nearly identical universe ofwaste; how discarded chemicals that are not "offspecification" are regulated; how the State's definition ofsolidwaste provides forregulation ofwaste that are recycled; and how theextract procedure toxic test methods forpH monitoring are substantially equivalent toEPA's.In the completed application, theState included an addendum comparing the State's criteria withEPA listings; an Attorney General's opinion that discarded chemical products (whether off-specification or not)are subject to the State's regulations; assurances from the DOEregarding authority to regulate recycled wastes; and assurances regarding extract procedure toxic pH monitoring procedures. Inresponse to EPA's finalcomments, the Attorney General's office alsoprovided an opinion that the State has authority to regulate recycled wastes.The Authorization Plan was amended to include specific commitments to develop necessary data orregulatory amendments to demonstrate equivalent designation anddelisting procedures and to amend State regulations to eliminate ambiguityregarding recycled wastes.

3.Generator/transporter requirements. EPArequested 

### 34955

HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 34955 1983

### 34956 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 2, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

clarification regarding therequirement that generators designate on the shipping manifest only permitted or approved facilities when shipping
wastes out ofstate fortreatment, storage ordisposal; and regarding requirements for transporter responsibilities in the event ofspills of hazardous wastes in transit. Inthe completed application, the State clarified that under itsrules, transporters are required to take action in the event ofa spill intransit and included MOA assurances regarding requirements for generator designation ofpermitted facilities. In response to EPA's final comments, the Attorney General stated that the State has the authority to make suchMOA commitments. TheAuthorization Plan

was amended to commit to a regulation amendment to assure fully equivalent generator requirements.

4.Facility standards/permitting procedures.EPA requested clarification regarding what liability insurance requirements would apply to perniitted facilities since State regulations in this regard are very generally stated; and how the Statewould satisfy the requirement that all RCRA draft permit notices be made public by newspaper publication and radio broadcast. In the complete application, the State provided

asssurances in the MOA to apply liability insurance requirements identical to EPA's and to provide both. radio broadcast and newspaper publication for all RCRA draft permit notices. In response to EPA's final comments, the DOE included a commitment in the Authorization Plan to amend State regulations to specify liability insurance requirements for permitted facilities.

5.Statutory/legal authorities. EPA requested clarification regarding apparent inconsistencies within the State's hazardous waste statute itself and between the statute and its implementing regulations; and clarificaton ofauthorities for sharing confidential information with EPA, for inspection entry authority and for assuring public participation in the enforcement process. EPAnoted that certain statutory language appeared to limit enforcement remedies to program violations involving extremely hazardous waste, a subset ofthe State's universe ofregulated dangerous wastes. In response to EPA's comment, the Attorney General answered that the State has the authority to enforce all program requirements; this opinion was supported by evidence ofenforcement actions initiated by DOE. The statutory language in question was recently amended to clearly identify the scope of enforcement authority. In the complete application, the Attorney General also clarified the scope and intent of statutory authorities for sharing information with EPA and authority to enter premises forinspection ofrecords. In thefinal comments,EPA requested a specific commitment from the State not to oppose intervention by citizen intervenors in civil enforcement actions brought in the State courts. EPA also requested an explanation regarding authorities ofthePollution Control Hearings Board-a State administrative appeals board.To respond to these
concerns, the State made an agreement in theMOA not to oppose intervention in State court enforcement proceedings. The Pollution Control Hearings Board initiated rulemaking to the effect that the Board will not modify permits on appeal, but instead will remand to the DOE any permit found invalid.

6.IndiansLands.EPA had commented that the State's application as initially submitted did not indicate whether the State was assertingjurisdiction over Indian lands. As indicated in 40CFR Part 271.121(h) (formerly 40CFR 123.121(f)), States are not required to 'have such jurisdiction to qualify for authorization. If such authority is asserted, the State's application must provide an appropriate analysis ofthe State's authority to do so. As discussed in thepreamble to EPA regulations for authorization (45FR 33378, May 19, 1980), EPA assumes a State lacks authority unless the State affirmatively
asserts authority and supports its assertion with an analysis from the State Attorney General. The State of Washington asserted, in the complete application, that upon authorization it could implement the State program on Indian lands. As discussed in more detail below, EPA has concluded the State's assertion is not adequately supported in law orby the analysis provided; therefore, EPA willretain authority for implementing the Federal
program on Indian lands. Scope of Component A, Phase II

As origiially promulgated on January 12, 1981, Component A included permitting standards for certain classes ofsurface impoundments and waste piles used for treatment or storage of hazardous wastes. The State's application for Component A is consistent with those January 12, 1981 rules. On July26, 1982, as part of the facility standards for land disposal permitting, EPA amended the earlier Component A,rules for surface impoundments and waste piles and replaced the previous rules with the 

### amended version in the July 26, 1982 promulgation.

At the same time, EPA announced a policywhereby States that hadprepared applications based on theoriginal EPA
announcement could proceed under those applications without a change in the applicationrequirements. Where a State, like Washington, hasproceeded
tothe stage of submittal of a complete application prior tothe effective date of the amended regulations, the State could be authorized toto issueRCRA permits
to the categories offacilities covered by the original component for the limited class ofsurface impoundments and waste piles used fortreatment or storage ofhazardous wastes. Therefore, Washington isbeing granted interim authorization forthe limited class of surface impoundments andwaste piles consistent with the January 12, 1981 rules. Response toPublic Comments Summary

The public hearing on the Washington application forPhase Iand Phase II, Components Aand Binterim authorization was held byEPA Region 10onJanuary 25, 1983 in Seattle.The State participated inthe hearing at whichthere were approximately 50 attendees. Inaddition to a presentation bythe State,two other oral statements

were made. EPA Region 10received two additional written comments by the close ofthe announced public comment period, February 1,1983. Shortly after the close ofthe comment period, one additional written commentwas received.This comment, like oneother, focused onthat element ofthe State's application wherein the State asserted jurisdiction to operate itsprogram on Indian lands.

Ofthefour comments received within the prescribed comment period (two at the hearing, twoin writing), three expressed general or specific support of

a Stateprogram. The fourth comment (plusthe one received late) objected to theState's assertion ofjurisdiction over Indian lands.The following is a more detailed summary ofthe comments received andEPA's resonse tothese
comments.

One commentor provided a general expression oftheneed for a State program to operate in addition to the Federal program tohelp clean up sites which the Superfund program is not reaching.A second commentor expressed qualified support ofthe State's program andnoted that while the State program did not fully satisfy the organization being represented, the State program on the whole is viewed as providing safe and appropriate

HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 34956 1983I 

### Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 2, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

management ofhazardous waste. This
commentor noted that upon approval of the State program, implementation
progress would be monitored. A third
commentor expressed full support for authorization ofthe State's program. The fourth commentor objected to the State's assertion ofjurisdiction over Indian lands, noting that theState has "to overcome" both Federal and State law in order to achieve such jurisdiction. This commentor, and the one submitting late comments, each asserted the State does notin fact have authority to regulate hazardous waste on Indian lands.

EPA acknowledges the general and specific support of the State's program, butpoints out that the hazardous waste program being considered has no direct bearing on implementation ofcurrent Superfund clean-up activities which are conducted pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of1980, another law. The program being offered by the State will operate in lieu ofthe EPA regulations under RCRA, although EPA will retain oversight responsibility and back-up enforcement authority. With respect to the expression of qualified support for the State program, EPA encourages citizen overview ofauthorized programs.

Before public comments were received regarding theissue ofState jurisdiction over Indian lands, EPA had concluded that the State's application did not demonstrate adequate legal authority for the State to exercise jurisdiction over Indian lands. Contrary
to the State's argument, EPA concludes that RCRA and the act ofauthorization do not convey to the State any authority relative to Indian lands jurisdiction. Rather, States mustindependently obtain such authority expressly from Congress or by treaty.The State has not demonstrated such authority and to EPA's knowledge has notbeen granted such authority; EPA, therefore, will retain jurisdiction for operating the Federal program on Indian lands in the State ofWashington.

Decision

Ihave determined that the Washington State program is substantially equivalent to the Federal program forPhase I and Phase II, Components A and B hazardous waste management, as defined in 40 CFR Part 271, Subpart B (formerly 40 CFRPart 123, Subpart F). In accordance with Section 3006(c) ofRCRA, the State of Washington is hereby granted interim authorization to operate its hazardous
waste program in lieu ofPhase 

### .1 and Phase II,Components A and B ofthe hazardous waste program, except with respect to hazardous waste activity on Indian lands which will remain under the Federal program. Compliance With Executive Order12291

The Office ofManagement and Budget has exempted thisrule from the requirements'of Section3 ofExecutive Order12291.

Certification Underthe Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the provisions of5U.S.C. 605(b), Ihereby certify that this authorization will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The authorization suspends the applicability of certain Federal regulations in favor of the State program, thereby eliminating duplicative requirements for handlers of hazardous waste in the State.It does not impose anynew burdens on small entities. Thisrule, therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart271

Hazardous materials, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Confidential business information. Authority

This notice is issued under the authority ofthe Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of1976 and Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of1980, 42U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

Dated: July 18,1983. 

### ErnestaB.Barnes, RegionalAdministrator.

FR Doc. 83-20845 Filed 8-1-83: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENTAGENCY

44 CFR Part 64
[Docket No. FEMA 6546]

List of Communities Eligible forthe Sale of Insurance Under the National Flood Insurance Program; California, et al.
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency. ACTION: Finalrule.

SUMMARY: Thisrule lists communities participating in the NationalFlood Insurance Program (NFIP] and eligible for second layer insurance coverage. These communities have applied to the
program and have agreed to enact certain flood plain management

measures. The communities' participation in theregular program authorizes the sale of floodinsurance to

owners ofproperty located in the communities listed.
EFFECTIVE DATES:The date listed in the fourth column ofthe table.
ADDRESSES: 

### Flood insurance policies for property located in the communities listed canbe obtained from any licensed property insurance agent or broker serving the eligible community, or from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) at: P.O. Box 34294, Bethesda, Maryland 20034, Phone: (800) 638-6620.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard E. Sanderson, ChiefNatural Hazards Division (202) 287-0270, 500 C Street Southwest DonohoeBuildingRoom 505, Washington, D.C. 20472.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), enables property owners to purchase flood insurance at rates made ,reasonable through a Federal subsidy. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local flood plain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Since the communities on the attached listhave recently entered the NFIP, subsidized flood insurance is now available for property in the community.

In addition, theDirector ofthe Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified the special floodhazard areas in some ofthese communities by publishing a Flood Hazard Boundary Map. The date ofthe flood map, ifone has been published, is indicated in the fifth column ofthe table. In the communities listed where a flood map has been published, Section 102 ofthe Flood Disaster Protection Act of1973, as amended, requires the purchase offlood insurance as a condition ofFederal or federally related financial assistance for acquisition or construction ofbuildings in the special flood hazard area shown

on the map.

The Director finds that delayed effective dates would be contrary to the public interest.The Director also finds that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and
unnecessary.

The Catalog of DomesticAssistance Number forthis program is 83.100 "Flood Insurance." This program is 

### 34957

HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 34957 1983