24084 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Proposed Rules

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This rule will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, because it

merely proposes approval of a state rule

implementing a federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. In addition, redesignation of an

area to attainment under sections

107(d)(3)(D) and (E) of the Clean Air Act

does not impose any new requirements.

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of

the Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

(d) Executive Order 13175

Executive Order 13175, entitled

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal

implications’’ is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on

one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

government and the Indian tribes, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes.’’

This proposed rule does not have

tribal implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on tribal

governments, on the relationship

between the Federal government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal government and Indian tribes,

as specified in Executive Order 13175.

This action does not involve or impose

any requirements that affect Indian

Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175

does not apply to this proposed rule.

(e) Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This proposed approval will not have

a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because SIP

approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP proposed

approval does not create any new

requirements, I certify that this action

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Moreover, due to the nature of

the Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA

U.S.A., 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). Redesignation of an

area to attainment under sections

107(d)(3)(D) and (E) of the Clean Air Act

does not impose any new requirements.

Redesignation to attainment is an action

that affects the legal designation of a

geographical area and does not impose

any regulatory requirements. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP proposed

approval does not create any new

requirements, I certify that the proposed

approval of the redesignation request

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

(f) Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the

proposed approval action does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

proposes approval of pre-existing

requirements under State or local law,

and imposes no new requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

oxides, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: April 27, 2001.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

[FR Doc. 01–11915 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[TN–T5–2001–03; FRL–6977–7]

Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval

of Operating Permit Program;

Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby

County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the

public comment period.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

Mr. George Hays as counsel for the

National Parks Conservation

Association, EPA is reopening the

comment period for a proposed rule

published on March 20, 2001, in the

Federal Register (66 FR 15680) for full

approval of the operating permit

programs submitted by the Tennessee

Department of Environment and

Conservation and the Memphis-Shelby

County Health Department.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by EPA on or before June 11,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Ms. Kim Pierce, Regional

Title V Program Manager, Air &

Radiation Technology Branch, EPA

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8909.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim

Pierce, EPA Region 4, at (404) 562–9124

or pierce.kim@epa.gov/.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Proposed Rules 24085

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the direct final

rule located in the final rules section

and the proposed rule located in the

proposed rules section of the Federal

Register published on March 20, 2001.

Dated: May 3, 2001.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 01–11911 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–6958–5]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for

comment.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to use

the Delisting Risk Assessment Software

(DRAS) in the evaluation of a delisting

petition. Based on waste specific

information provided by the petitioner,

EPA is proposing to use the DRAS to

evaluate the impact of the petitioned

waste on human health and the

environment.

The EPA is also proposing to grant a

petition submitted by Tenneco

Automotive, Inc. (Tenneco) to exclude

(or delist) certain solid wastes generated

by its Paragould, Arkansas, facility from

the lists of hazardous wastes contained

in 40 CFR 261.24 and 261.31

(hereinafter all sectional references are

to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated).

Tenneco submitted the petition under

sections 260.20 and 260.22(a). Section

260.20 allows any person to petition the

Administrator to modify or revoke any

provision of 40 CFR parts 260 through

266, 268 and 273. Section 260.22(a)

specifically provides generators the

opportunity to petition the

Administrator to exclude a waste on a

‘‘generator specific’’ basis from the

hazardous waste lists.

The Agency bases its proposed

decision to grant the petition on an

evaluation of waste-specific information

provided by the petitioner. This

proposed decision, if finalized, would

exclude the petitioned waste from the

requirements of hazardous waste

regulations under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

If finalized, we would conclude that

Tenneco’s petitioned waste is

nonhazardous with respect to the

original listing criteria and that the

stabilization process Tenneco used will

substantially reduce the likelihood of

migration of constituents from this

waste. We would also conclude that

their process minimizes short-term and

long-term threats from the petitioned

waste to human health and the

environment.

DATES: We will accept comments until

June 25, 2001. We will stamp comments

received after the close of the comment

period as ‘‘late.’’ These ‘‘late’’ comments

may not be considered in formulating a

final decision. Your requests for a

hearing must reach EPA by June 11,

2001. The request must contain the

information prescribed in 40 CFR

260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Please send three copies of

your comments. You should send two

copies to William Gallagher, Delisting

Section, Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Division (6PD–O),

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. You

should send a third copy to the

Arkansas Department of Environmental

Quality (ADEQ), P.O. Box 8913, Little

Rock, Arkansas, 72209–8913. Identify

your comments at the top with this

regulatory docket number: ‘‘F–00–

ARDEL–TENNECO.’’

You should address requests for a

hearing to the Director, Carl Edlund,

Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division (6PD), Environmental

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle Peace at (214) 665–7430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

information in this section is organized

as follows:

I. Overview Information

A. What action is EPA proposing?

B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this

delisting?

C. How will Tenneco manage the waste if

it is delisted?

D. When would EPA finalize the proposed

delisting?

E. How would this action affect States?

II. Background

A. What is the history of the delisting

program?

B. What is a delisting petition, and what

does it require of a petitioner?

C. What factors must EPA consider in

deciding whether to grant a delisting

petition?

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste

Information and Data

A. What wastes did Tenneco petition EPA

to delist?

B. What is Tenneco, and how did it

generate this waste?

C. What information and analyses did

Tenneco submit to support its petition?

D. What were the results of Tenneco’s

analysis?

E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of

delisting this waste?

F. What did EPA conclude about Tenneco’s

analysis?

G. What other factors did EPA consider?

H. What is EPA’s evaluation of this

delisting petition?

IV. Next Steps

A. With what conditions must the

petitioner comply?

B. What happens if Tenneco violates the

terms and conditions?

V. Public Comments

A. How can I as an interested party submit

comments?

B. How may I review the docket or obtain

copies of the proposed exclusions?

VI. Regulatory Impact

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

X. Executive Order 13045

XI. Executive Order 13084

XII. National Technology Transfer and

Advancements Act

XIII. Executive Order 13132 Federalism

I. Overview Information

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing?

The EPA is proposing:

(1) To grant Tenneco’s petition to

have its stabilized sludge excluded, or

delisted, from the definition of a

hazardous waste; and

(2) To use a fate and transport model

to evaluate the potential impact of the

petitioned waste on human health and

the environment. The Agency would

use this model to predict the

concentration of hazardous constituents

released from the petitioned waste, once

it is disposed.

B. Why Is EPA Proposing To Approve

This Delisting?

Tenneco’s petition requests a delisting

for listed hazardous wastes. Tenneco

does not believe that the petitioned

waste meets the criteria for which EPA

listed it. Tenneco also believes no

additional constituents or factors could

cause the waste to be hazardous. The

EPA’s review of this petition included

consideration of the original listing

criteria, and the additional factors

required by the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).

See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)–(4). In

making the initial delisting

determination, EPA evaluated the

petitioned waste against the listing

criteria and factors cited in

§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this

review, the EPA agrees with the

petitioner that the waste is

nonhazardous with respect to the

original listing criteria. (If the EPA had

found, based on this review, that the