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

PART 200-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL 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 of the 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

Interim Authorization, Phase II,

Components A, B, and C

AGENCY' Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Extension of

Application Submission and Interim

Authorization Period.

SUMMARY: On July 21, 1983, the State of

Tennessee requested extensions of the

deadline for submitting a complete

Interim Authorization application under

the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act of 1976, 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 of this 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 EPA granted previously to the

State for the Phase I portion of the

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 of interim 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, for good

cause, extend the July 26, 1983, deadline

for submission of the interim

authorization application and the

deadline for termination of the approval

of the State program.

Note.-40 CFR Part 123, including the July

26, 1982 amendments (47 FR 32373), was

recodified on April 1, 1983, as 40 CFR Part 271

(48 FR 14248).]

Tennessee received Phase I interim

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 of land

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

Solid Waste Disposal Control Board

to adopt the regulations

-October 1983-Approval of

regulations by Tennessee Attorney

General

-October 1983-Submit complete

application for Component 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, I found there was good cause to grant the State's request for the

extensions beyond the deadline for

applying for Phase 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 of the hazardous waste

management program will revert to EPA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

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 and Recovery Act of 1976, as

amended (42 U.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 I and Phase II,

Components A and B, Interim

Authorization'of the State Hazardous

Waste Management Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Approval of State Program.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

provisions, the State of Washington has

applied for interim authorization Phase

I and Phase 1I, Components A and B.

The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) has reviewed Washington's

application for Phases I and 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 for Phases I and II,

Components A and B to operate the

State's hazardous waste program

covered by these phases in lieu of the

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, 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101,

(206) 442-2857.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In the May 19, 1980 Federal Register

(45 FR 33063), the EPA promulgated

regulations, pursuant to Subtitle C of the

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 of hazardous 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 will be granted in two

phases corresponding to the two stages

in which the underlying Federal program

takes effect.

EPA's Phase I regulations

(promulgated May 19, 1980) establish,

among other things: the initial

identification and listing of hazardous

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.

In the January 26, 1981 Federal

Register (46 FR 7965), EPA announced

the availability of portions of the second

phase of interim 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 of the subparts of the

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 II contains 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 of the State of

Washington submitted an application to

EPA for Phase 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 of the formal

application. EPA conducted an initial

review of the application to determine

whether it was complete; the EPA found

the application to be incomplete, in part

because the Attorney General's

statement was incomplete. The

application, also, did not identify the

liability insurance requirements that

would apply to permitted facilities. EPA

also identified a gap in the described

scope and coverage of hazardous waste

sources in the State-those energy tpcilities that are under the jurisdiction

of the 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 or assurances

regarding how certain aspects of the

program would be carried out, as

discussed below. To complete the

application and to respond to the

questions and issues raised by EPA, the

State submitted additional information

and addenda to its application on

September 28, 1982, November 5, 1982,

and November 19, 1982, including a

completed, signed Attorney General's

Statement. EPA determined these

materials completed the application.

On December 22, 1982, EPA made the

complete application available for

public inspection and published a notice

in the Federal Register inviting the

public to comment on the Washington

application for interim authorization

Phase I and Phase II, Components A and

B of the hazardous waste management

program at a public hearing to be

conducted by Region 10 on January 25,

1983. The notice also invited the public

to submit written comments to Region 10

by the close of the public comment

period, February 1, 1983. As EPA

conducted the formal review of the

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 of the

requirements for a substantially

equivalent program. The following is a

summary of the major issues identified

during the course of EPA's review of the

State's application and how the State

amended the application to respond to

EPA concerns:

1. The role of the Energy Facility Site

Evaluation Council (EFSEC).

EFSEC pre-empts other State

requirements in approving the

construction and operation of large

energy projects. EPA requested a

description of how hazardous waste

activity at these facilities would be

regulated. In the complete application,

the State demonstrated EFSEC's

adoption of the hazardous waste

regulations of the lead agency, the

Department of Ecology (DOE); submitted

a Memorandum of Understanding

between EFSEC and DOE; provided a

discussion of EFSEC's authority to adopt

rules; and provided a general

description of the EFSEC project

certification process. The application

included information describing

hazardous waste activity at energy

facilities. At the present time, hazardous

waste activity at energy facilities under

EFSEC's jurisdiction is limited to

possible intermittent generation at three

facilities, but there is no on-site

hazardous waste treatment, storage,

disposal activity at these facilities. No

change in the extent of hazardous waste

activity is expected in the foreseeable

future. The Authorization Plan was also

amended to include commitments for

final authorization. In response to EPA's

final comments, the State provided

additional confirmation of EFSEC

authorities to regulate hazardous waste

generators and a further description of

EFSEC's participation in the State's

program. EFSEC also agreed to abide by

the terms of the Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA) with EPA with

respect to their regulation of hazardous

waste generators.

2. Universe of waste regulated. EPA

requested clarification regarding how

use of the State's dangerous waste

criteria for designation and delisting of

waste would assure regulation of a

nearly identical universe of waste; how

discarded chemicals that are not "offspecification" are regulated; how the

State's definition of solid waste provides

for regulation of waste that are recycled;

and how the extract procedure toxic test

methods for pH monitoring are

substantially equivalent to EPA's. In the

completed application, the State

included an addendum comparing the

State's criteria with EPA 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 DOE regarding authority to regulate

recycled wastes; and assurances

regarding extract procedure toxic pH

monitoring procedures. In response to

EPA's final comments, the Attorney

General's office also provided an

opinion that the State has authority to

regulate recycled wastes. The

Authorization Plan was amended to

include specific commitments to develop

necessary data or regulatory

amendments to demonstrate equivalent

designation and delisting procedures

and to amend State regulations to

eliminate ambiguity regarding recycled

wastes.

3. Generator/transporter

requirements. EPA requested

34955

HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 34955 1983
34956 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 2, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

clarification regarding the requirement

that generators designate on the

shipping manifest only permitted or

approved facilities when shipping

wastes out of state for treatment,

storage or disposal; and regarding

requirements for transporter

responsibilities in the event of spills of

hazardous wastes in transit. In the

completed application, the State

clarified that under its rules,

transporters are required to take action

in the event of a spill in transit and

included MOA assurances regarding

requirements for generator designation

of permitted facilities. In response to

EPA's final comments, the Attorney

General stated that the State has the

authority to make such MOA

commitments. The Authorization 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 State would 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 of authorities for sharing

confidential information with EPA, for

inspection entry authority and for

assuring public participation in the

enforcement process. EPA noted that

certain statutory language appeared to

limit enforcement remedies to program

violations involving extremely

hazardous waste, a subset of the State's

universe of regulated 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 of enforcement

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 for inspection of records.

In the final 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 of the Pollution Control

Hearings Board-a State administrative

appeals board. To respond to these

concerns, the State made an agreement

in the MOA 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. Indians Lands. EPA had commented

that the State's application as initially

submitted did not indicate whether the

State was asserting jurisdiction over

Indian lands. As indicated in 40 CFR

Part 271.121(h) (formerly 40 CFR

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 of the

State's authority to do so. As discussed

in the preamble to EPA regulations for

authorization (45 FR 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 or by the analysis

provided; therefore, EPA will retain

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

of surface 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 July 26, 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

policy whereby States that had prepared

applications based on the original EPA

announcement could proceed under

those applications without a change in

the application requirements. Where a

State, like Washington, has proceeded

to the stage of submittal of a complete

application prior to the effective date of

the amended regulations, the State could

be authorized to to issue RCRA permits

to the categories of facilities covered by

the original component for the limited

class of surface impoundments and

waste piles used for treatment or

storage of hazardous wastes. Therefore,

Washington is being granted interim

authorization for the limited class of

surface impoundments and waste piles

consistent with the January 12, 1981

rules.

Response to Public Comments Summary

The public hearing on the Washington

application for Phase I and Phase II,

Components A and B interim

authorization was held by EPA Region

10 on January 25, 1983 in Seattle. The

State participated in the hearing at

which there were approximately 50

attendees. In addition to a presentation

by the State, two other oral statements

were made. EPA Region 10 received two

additional written comments by the

close of the announced public comment

period, February 1, 1983. Shortly after

the close of the comment period, one

additional written comment was

received. This comment, like one other,

focused on that element of the State's

application wherein the State asserted

jurisdiction to operate its program on

Indian lands.

Of the four comments received within

the prescribed comment period (two at

the hearing, two in writing), three

expressed general or specific support of

a State program. The fourth comment

(plus the one received late) objected to

the State's assertion of jurisdiction over

Indian lands. The following is a more

detailed summary of the comments

received and EPA's resonse to these

comments.

One commentor provided a general

expression of the need for a State

program to operate in addition to the

Federal program to help clean up sites

which the Superfund program is not

reaching. A second commentor

expressed qualified support of the

State's program and noted 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 1983
I Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 2, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

management of hazardous waste. This

commentor noted that upon approval of

the State program, implementation

progress would be monitored. A third

commentor expressed full support for

authorization of the State's program.

The fourth commentor objected to the

State's assertion of jurisdiction over

Indian lands, noting that the State 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 not in fact have authority to

regulate hazardous waste on Indian

lands.

EPA acknowledges the general and

specific support of the State's program,

but points out that the hazardous waste

program being considered has no direct

bearing on implementation of current

Superfund clean-up activities which are

conducted pursuant to the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980, another law. The program

being offered by the State will operate

in lieu of the 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 of authorized

programs.

Before public comments were

received regarding the issue of State

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 of authorization

do not convey to the State any authority

relative to Indian lands jurisdiction.

Rather, States must independently

obtain such authority expressly from

Congress or by treaty. The State has not

demonstrated such authority and to

EPA's knowledge has not been granted

such authority; EPA, therefore, will

retain jurisdiction for operating the

Federal program on Indian lands in the

State of Washington.

Decision

I have determined that the

Washington State program is

substantially equivalent to the Federal

program for Phase I and Phase II,

Components A and B hazardous waste

management, as defined in 40 CFR Part

271, Subpart B (formerly 40 CFR Part

123, Subpart F). In accordance with

Section 3006(c) of RCRA, the State of

Washington is hereby granted interim

authorization to operate its hazardous

waste program in lieu of Phase .1 and

Phase II, Components A and B of the

hazardous waste program, except with

respect to hazardous waste activity on

Indian lands which will remain under

the Federal program.

Compliance With Executive Order 12291

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements'of Section 3 of Executive

Order 12291.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby 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 any new burdens on small

entities. This rule, therefore, does not

require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Hazardous materials, reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Water

supply, Intergovernmental relations,

Penalties, Confidential business

information.

Authority

This notice is issued under the

authority of the Solid Waste Disposal

Act as amended by the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

and Solid Waste Disposal Act

Amendments of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et

seq.

Dated: July 18, 1983.

Ernesta B. Barnes,

Regional Administrator.

FR Doc. 83-20845 Filed 8-1-83: 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket No. FEMA 6546]

List of Communities Eligible for the

Sale of Insurance Under the National

Flood Insurance Program; California,

et al.

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule lists communities

participating in the National Flood

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 the regular program

authorizes the sale of flood insurance to

owners of property located in the

communities listed.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The date listed in the

fourth column of the table.

ADDRESSES: Flood insurance policies for

property located in the communities

listed can be 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, Chief Natural

Hazards Division (202) 287-0270, 500 C

Street Southwest Donohoe BuildingRoom 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 list have

recently entered the NFIP, subsidized

flood insurance is now available for

property in the community.

In addition, the Director of the Federal

Emergency Management Agency has

identified the special flood hazard areas

in some of these communities by

publishing a Flood Hazard Boundary

Map. The date of the flood map, if one

has been published, is indicated in the

fifth column of the table. In the

communities listed where a flood map

has been published, Section 102 of the

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as

amended, requires the purchase of flood

insurance as a condition of Federal or

federally related financial assistance for

acquisition or construction of buildings

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 Domestic Assistance

Number for this program is 83.100

"Flood Insurance." This program is

34957

HeinOnline -- 48 Fed. Reg. 34957 1983