Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37311

enforceable by EPA, WV OAQ and

citizens.

The EPA and WV OAQ have reviewed

documentation provided by the

Sistersville Plant regarding their failure

to conduct the initial performance test

within 60 days of initial start-up, or May

31, 1998. It appears from that

documentation that the Sistersville

Plant made good faith efforts to comply

with that requirement of the XL project,

the proposed site-specific deferral, and

the WV OAQ consent order. In

recognition that the Sistersville Plant

cannot possibly meet that passed

deadline, and the site-specific deferral

which proposed that requirement has

not yet been promulgated, the EPA

proposes to modify the site-specific

deferral prior to its promulgation.

The modification would extend by 60

days, the initial performance test

deadline that was contained in the

proposed site-specific deferral. The EPA

proposes an extension period of 60 days

in response to the Sistersville Plant’s

representative’s written statement that

the test could be accomplished by the

end of June, 1998, but that the recent

history of operational difficulties at the

Sistersville Plant indicates additional

time may become necessary. A copy of

that electronic mail note, dated May 26,

1998 from Mr. Tony Vandenberg to Ms.

Beth Termini and Ms. Michele Aston,

has been entered into the docket for this

supplemental notice. A recent telephone

meeting between EPA and the

Sistersville Plant confirmed that further

delays to the initial performance test

schedule have occurred, due to

continued operational problems with

the thermal oxidizer and severe

inclement weather in the Sistersville,

West Virginia area, and that the initial

performance test is scheduled for July

14 and 15, 1998.

The EPA proposes that extending the

initial performance test deadline by 60

days will not result in significant, if any,

decreases in the environmental benefits

of this XL project. The Sistersville Plant

has reported that the thermal oxidizer

began operation on April 1, 1998, and

following some initial technical

difficulties, has been fully operational

in accordance with the conditions of the

proposed site-specific deferral, since

April 13, 1998. The primary purpose of

the initial performance test is to set a

site-specific operating temperature that

will indicate the thermal oxidizer is

achieving the required 98 percent by

weight reduction of the organics in the

controlled vapor stream, as set forth in

the proposed site-specific deferral. The

FPA and the proposed site-specific

deferral set a default operating

temperature of 1600 degrees Fahrenheit

for the period prior to conducting the

initial performance test. This

requirement is contained in the

proposed site-specific deferral at

§§ (f)(2)(ii)(A)(1)(I) of paragraphs

264.1080 and 265.1080, and is currently

enforceable under the WV OAQ consent

order. See 63 FR 11200, March 6, 1998.

Because the Sistersville Plant has

reportedly operated the thermal oxidizer

at 1600 degrees Fahrenheit, EPA

estimates that the Sistersville Plant has

been achieving the majority, if not all,

of the environmental benefits of the

thermal oxidizer’s operation since it

first began its fully operational service

on April 13, 1998.

In light of the apparent good faith

effort by the Sistersville Plant to meet

the May 31, 1998 deadline for the initial

performance test, their timely

notification to EPA of the missed

deadline, and their compliance with the

requirements otherwise applicable to

the thermal oxidizer (e.g., continuously

operating the unit at 1600 degrees

Fahrenheit), the EPA proposes to extend

the deadline for the initial performance

test.

At the EPA’s request, the Sistersville

Plant has agreed to provide direct

written notice of this issue to the XL

project stakeholder group, and to notify

this group that a Federal Register

document will be published requesting

public comment on this issue. The

Sistersville Plant has also agreed that,

upon publication of today’s document

in the Federal Register, it will promptly

notify the stakeholder group, and

publish a notification in the local

Sistersville newspaper of the

opportunity for public comment related

to today’s supplemental proposal.

The EPA considers a 14-day comment

period to be adequate for this document,

due to the very narrow scope of the

issue, the narrow applicability of the

site-specific deferral being considered,

and the extensive notice to interested

parties that the Sistersville Plant will

provide prior to, and immediately

following, publication of this

supplemental proposal in the Federal

Register.

List of Subjects 40 CFR Parts 264 and

265

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous waste,

Organics, Surface impoundment,

Thermal oxidizer.

Dated: July 7, 1998.

J. Charles Fox,

Associate Administrator, Office of

Reinvention.

[FR Doc. 98–18463 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 281

[FRL–6123–4]

Tennessee; Tentative Approval of

State Underground Storage Tank

Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of

tentative determination on application

of State of Tennessee for final approval,

public hearing and public comment

period.

SUMMARY: The State of Tennessee has

applied for approval of its underground

storage tank program for petroleum

substances under Subtitle I of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). The Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed

the Tennessee application and has made

the tentative decision that Tennessee’s

underground storage tank program for

petroleum substances satisfies all of the

requirements necessary to qualify for

approval. The Tennessee application for

approval is available for public review

and comment. A public hearing will be

held to solicit comments on the

application, unless insufficient public

interest is expressed.

DATES: A public hearing is scheduled for

September 3, 1998, unless insufficient

public interest is expressed in holding

a hearing. EPA reserves the right to

cancel the public hearing if sufficient

public interest is not communicated to

EPA in writing by August 20, 1998. EPA

will determine by August 27, 1998,

whether there is significant interest to

hold the public hearing. The State of

Tennessee will participate in the public

hearing held by EPA on this subject.

Written comments on the Tennessee

approval application, as well as requests

to present oral testimony, must be

received by the close of business on

August 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Tennessee

approval application are available at the

following addresses for inspection and

copying:

Tennessee Department of Environment

and Conservation, Division of

Underground Storage Tanks, 401

Church Street 4th Floor, L&C Tower,

Nashville, Tennessee 37243–1541,

Phone: (615) 532–0945, 8:00 am

through 4:30 pm, Central Daylight

Savings Time

U.S. EPA Docket Clerk, Office of

Underground Storage Tanks, c/o

RCRA Information Center, 1235
37312 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington,

Virginia 22202, Phone: (703) 603–

9231, 9:00 am through 5:00 pm,

Eastern Daylight Savings Time

and

U.S. EPA Region 4, Underground

Storage Tank Section, Atlanta Federal

Center, 15th Floor, 61 Forsyth Street,

S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Phone:

(404) 562–9277, 9:00 am through 5:00

pm, Eastern Daylight Savings Time.

Written comments should be sent to

Mr. John K. Mason, Chief of

Underground Storage Tank Section, U.S.

EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street S.W.,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303, telephone (404)

562–9277.

Unless insufficient public interest is

expressed, EPA will hold a public

hearing on the State of Tennessee’s

application for program approval on

September 3, 1998, at 7:00 pm, Central

Daylight Savings Time, at the Tennessee

Department of Environment and

Conservation, Conference Room B, 17th

Floor, L&C Tower, 401 Church Street,

Nashville, Tennessee 37243–1541.

Anyone who wishes to learn whether or

not the public hearing on the State’s

application has been cancelled should

telephone the following contacts after

August 27, 1998:

Mr. John K. Mason, Chief, Underground

Storage Tank Section, U.S. EPA

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Phone: (404)

562–9277, or

Mr. Lamar Bradley, Acting Director,

Division of Underground Storage

Tanks, Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation, 401

Church Street, 4th Floor, L&C Tower,

Nashville, Tennessee 37243–1541,

Phone: (615) 532–0945.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

John K. Mason, Chief, Underground

Storage Tank Section, U.S. EPA Region

4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303,

phone: (404) 562–9277.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 9004 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

authorizes EPA to approve State

underground storage tank programs to

operate in the State in lieu of the

Federal underground storage tank (UST)

program. Program approval may be

granted by EPA pursuant to RCRA

section 9004(b), if the Agency finds that

the State program: is ‘‘no less stringent’’

than the Federal program for the seven

elements set forth at RCRA section

9004(a)(1) through (7); includes the

notification requirements of RCRA

section 9004(a)(8); and provides for

adequate enforcement of compliance

with UST standards of RCRA section

9004(a).

II. Tennessee

The State of Tennessee submitted

their draft state program approval

application to EPA by letter dated

December 9, 1993. After reviewing the

package, EPA submitted comments to

the state for review. Tennessee

submitted their complete state program

approval application for EPA’s tentative

approval on September 1, 1996.

On December 8, 1989, Tennessee

adopted UST program regulations for

petroleum underground storage tanks

related to procedures for fees and

notification. The remainder of

Tennessee’s UST program regulations

for petroleum underground storage

tanks became effective on April 15,

1990. Prior to the adoption of the

regulations, Tennessee solicited public

comment and held a public hearing on

the draft UST program regulations. EPA

has reviewed the Tennessee application,

and has tentatively determined that the

State’s UST program for petroleum

substances meets all of the requirements

necessary to qualify for final approval.

EPA will hold a public hearing on its

tentative decision on September 3, 1998,

unless insufficient public interest is

expressed. The public may also submit

written comments on EPA’s tentative

determination until August 20, 1998.

Copies of the Tennessee application are

available for inspection and copying at

the locations indicated in the

ADDRESSES section of this document.

EPA will consider all public

comments on its tentative determination

received at the hearing, or received in

writing during the public comment

period. Issues raised by those comments

may be the basis for a decision to deny

final approval to Tennessee. EPA

expects to make a final decision on

whether or not to approve Tennessee’s

program within 60 days, and will give

notice of it in the Federal Register. The

document will include a summary of

the reasons for the final determination

and a response to all major comments.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of section 6 of Executive

Order 12866.

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

certain regulatory actions on State,

local, and tribal governments and the

private sector. Under sections 202 and

205 of the UMRA, EPA generally must

prepare a written statement of economic

and regulatory alternatives analyses for

proposed and final rules with Federal

mandates, as defined by the UMRA, 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.

The section 202 and 205 requirements

do not apply to today’s action because

it is not a ‘‘Federal mandate’’ and

because it does not impose annual costs

of $100 million or more.

Today’s rule contains no Federal

mandates for State, local or tribal

governments or the private sector for

two reasons. First, today’s action does

not impose new or additional

enforceable duties on any State, local or

tribal governments or the private sector

because the requirements of the

Tennessee program are already imposed

by the State and subject to State law.

Second, the Act also generally excludes

from the definition of a ‘‘Federal

mandate’’ duties that arise from

participation in a voluntary Federal

program. Tennessee’s participation in

an approved UST program is voluntary.

Even if today’s rule did contain a

Federal mandate, this rule will not

result in annual expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and/or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

the private sector. Costs to State, local

and/or tribal governments already exist

under the Tennessee program, and

today’s action does not impose any

additional obligations on regulated

entities. In fact, EPA’s approval of state

programs generally may reduce, not

increase, compliance costs for the

private sector.

The requirements of section 203 of

UMRA also do not apply to today’s

action. Before EPA establishes any

regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, section 203 of the UMRA

requires EPA to develop a small

government agency plan. This rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments. The Agency

recognizes that although small

governments may own and/or operate

USTs, they are already subject to the

regulatory requirements under existing

state law which are being approved by

EPA, and, thus, are not subject to any

additional significant or unique

requirements by virtue of this program

approval.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 37313

C. Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

EPA has determined that this

approval will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Such small

entities which own and/or operate USTs

are already subject to the regulatory

requirements under existing State law

which are being approved by EPA.

EPA’s approval does not impose any

additional burdens on these small

entities. This is because EPA’s approval

would simply result in an

administrative change, rather than a

change in the substantive requirements

imposed on these small entities.

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 approval will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This rule

approves regulatory requirements under

existing State law to which small

entities are already subject. It does not

impose any new burdens on small

entities. This rule, therefore, does not

require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

D. Submission to Congress and The

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply

because this action is not a rule, for

purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3).

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal agencies

must consider the paperwork burden

imposed by an information request

contained in a proposed rule or a final

rule. This rule will not impose any

information requirements upon the

regulated community.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Hazardous materials, State program

approval, Underground storage tanks.

Authority: This notice is issued under the

authority of Section 9004 of the Solid Waste

Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a),

6926, 6974(b).

Dated: July 1, 1998.

Michael V. Peyton,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–18422 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P