61060 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 208 / Monday, October 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Court also remanded and vacated EPA’s 

determinations that certain process units at PCWP 

facilities need not be subject to emissions controls. 

EPA will respond to that portion of the Court’s 

ruling in a separate notice and comment 

rulemaking, and is not addressing that issue in 

today’s final rule. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

6:30 a.m. on November 5, 2007 through 

6:30 p.m. on December 18, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this 

document are available for inspection or 

copying at the First Coast Guard 

District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 

Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 

02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The telephone number is (617) 

223–8364. The First Coast Guard 

District Bridge Branch Office maintains 

the public docket for this temporary 

deviation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast 

Guard District, at (617) 223–8364. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Carlton Bridge, across the Kennebec 

River, mile 14.0, between Bath and 

Woolwich, Maine, has a vertical 

clearance in the closed position of 10 

feet at mean high water and 16 feet at 

mean low water. The existing 

drawbridge operation regulations are 

listed at 33 CFR 117.525. 

The owner of the bridge, Maine 

Department of Transportation, requested 

a temporary deviation to facilitate 

bridge painting operations at the Carlton 

Bridge. The bridge rarely opens for 

vessel traffic in November and 

December. 

Under this temporary deviation the 

Carlton Bridge need not open for the 

passage of vessel traffic between 6:30 

a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on the days of 

November 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, 27, 

and December 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18, 

2007. Vessels that can pass under the 

bridge without a bridge opening may do 

so at all times. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the bridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Should the bridge maintenance 

authorized by this temporary deviation 

be completed before the end of the 

effective period published in this notice, 

the Coast Guard will rescind the 

remainder of this temporary deviation, 

and the bridge shall be returned to its 

normal operation schedule. 

Notice of the above action shall be 

provided to the public in the Local 

Notice to Mariners and the Federal 

Register, where practicable. 

Dated: October 15, 2007. 

Gary Kassof, 

Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. E7–21244 Filed 10–26–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0048; FRL–8482–2] 

RIN 2060–AO65 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and 

Composite Wood Products 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On June 19, 2007, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated 

EPA’s provisions in the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Plywood and Composite 

Wood Products that established an 

October 1, 2008, compliance deadline 

and that created and delisted a low risk 

subcategory of plywood and composite 

wood products facilities. This action 

announces the Court’s decision and 

promulgates ministerial amendments 

that will incorporate the Court’s 

decision into the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

DATES: This rule was effective on 

October 29, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA does not seek 

comment on this final rule. The opinion 

issued by the Court on June 19, 2007 

and other information about the rule are 

contained in Docket ID No. OAR–2003–

0048 and Legacy Docket ID No. A–98–

44. All documents in the docket are 

listed in the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–

0048, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566–

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning applicability 

and compliance assistance, contact your 

State or local representative or 

appropriate EPA Regional Office 

representative. For other information, 

contact Ms. Mary Tom Kissell, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Sector Policies and Program Division, 

Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143–

01), EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541–

4516; fax number: (919) 541–0246; email address: kissell.mary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

553 of the Administrative Procedure 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, 

when an agency for good cause finds 

that notice and public procedure are 

impracticable, unnecessary or contrary 

to the public interest, the agency may 

issue a final rule without first providing 

notice and an opportunity for public 

comment on a proposed rule. There is 

good cause for making today’s rule final 

without prior proposal and opportunity 

for comment because the Court vacated 

EPA’s promulgation of the October 1, 

2008, compliance date and of the lowrisk provisions. The Court ruled that 

EPA was without statutory authority in 

our 2006 amendments to the national 

emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) to re-set the 

compliance date of October 1, 2007, first 

promulgated in the 2004 NESHAP. The 

Court also ruled that EPA had no 

statutory authority to create and then 

delist the low-risk Plywood and 

Composite Wood Products (PCWP) 

subcategory.1 Therefore, today’s action 

has no legal effect beyond ministerially 

fulfilling the Court’s order and is 

clerical in nature: we are merely 

revising the Code of Federal Regulations 

to conform our rules to the Court’s order 

and announcing the Court’s decision. 

Thus, notice and public procedure are 

unnecessary. 

EPA finds that this constitutes good 

cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). 

Providing an opportunity to comment 

on a proposed conforming amendment 

would be impracticable because it 

would unacceptably delay EPA’s action 

beyond the October 1, 2007, compliance 

deadline the Court ruled EPA must reimpose. It would also be unnecessary, 

since the Court’s direction was clear 

that EPA must remove the 2006 

NESHAP’s amendment re-setting the 

deadline beyond October 1, 2007, and 

the 2004 and 2006 provisions creating 

and delisting the low-risk PCWP 

subcategory was beyond EPA’s statutory 

authority. Finally, it is not in the public 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 208 / Monday, October 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 61061 

2The Louisiana-Pacific Corporation and Norbord 

Incorporated petition for judicial review did not 

result in any change to the PCWP NESHAP and is 

not discussed in this preamble. 

interest to delay revising the rule to 

conform to the Court’s order on these 

issues, as continuing to leave the 

vacated provisions in place creates 

confusion among the regulated 

community, implementing States and 

local governments, and the general 

public. 

Regulated Entities 

Categories and entities potentially 

affected by today’s action include: 

Category SIC code a NAICS code b Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ..................... 2421 321999 Sawmills with lumber kilns. 

2435 321211 Hardwood plywood and veneer plants. 

2436 321212 Softwood plywood and veneer plants. 

2493 321219 Reconstituted wood products plants (particleboard, medium density fiberboard, hardboard, fiberboard, and oriented strandboard plants). 

2439 321213 Structural wood members, not elsewhere classified (engineered wood products 

plants). 

aStandard Industrial Classification. 

b North American Industrial Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by today’s action. To determine 

whether your facility is affected by 

today’s action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in § 63.2231 of the 

final rule. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of today’s 

action to a particular entity, consult 

your State or local representative or the 

appropriate EPA Regional Office 

representative. 

Worldwide Web (WWW) 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of today’s 

action also will be available on the 

Worldwide Web (WWW) through EPA’s 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following the Administrator’s signature, 

a copy of this action will be posted on 

the TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly promulgated rules at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

I. Background 

We proposed NESHAP for the PCWP 

source category on January 9, 2003 (68 

FR 1276). The final rule (subpart DDDD 

in 40 CFR part 63) was published on 

July 30, 2004 (69 FR 45944). In addition 

to adopting maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT) standards 

for the PCWP category, we adopted a 

risk-based approach in the 2004 final 

rule by establishing and delisting a lowrisk subcategory of PCWP affected 

sources, which would have allowed 

low-risk sources to avoid complying 

with MACT. Except for eight sources 

that we determined were already 

eligible to join the low-risk subcategory 

and avoid MACT, all PCWP sources 

were initially included in the category 

subject to MACT, and any would-be 

low-risk sources could subsequently 

join the low-risk subcategory after EPA 

approved their submitted low-risk 

demonstrations. The methodology and 

criteria for PCWP affected sources to use 

in demonstrating that they are eligible to 

join the delisted low-risk subcategory 

were promulgated in the 2004 final rule 

in appendix B to subpart DDDD of 40 

CFR part 63. Any source who failed to 

obtain EPA approval of a low-risk 

demonstration would remain subject to 

MACT. 

Following promulgation of the 2004 

final PCWP rule, the Administrator 

received a petition for reconsideration 

filed by the Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC) and Environmental 

Integrity Project (EIP) pursuant to 

section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). The petition requested 

reconsideration of nine aspects of the 

final rule including the legal basis for 

the risk-based provisions. The petition 

for reconsideration also requested a stay 

of the effectiveness of the risk-based 

provisions. In a letter dated December 6, 

2004, EPA granted NRDC’s and EIP’s 

petition for reconsideration and 

declined the petitioners’ request that we 

take action to stay the effectiveness of 

the risk-based provisions. 

On July 29, 2005 (70 FR 44012), we 

published a notice of reconsideration 

and requested comment on the issues in 

the petition for reconsideration, 

including the full content of appendix B 

to subpart DDDD. In a separate notice 

published on July 29, 2005 (70 FR 

44012), we proposed amendments to 

subpart DDDD and both of the 

appendices to subpart DDDD including 

a request for comment on whether the 

MACT compliance date should be 

extended for sources submitting lowrisk demonstrations or for all sources. 

On February 16, 2006, EPA promulgated 

amendments to the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Plywood and Composite Wood 

Products. In the 2006 final rule, we 

promulgated a revised compliance 

deadline of October 1, 2008, for sources 

subject to the rule, which was 1 year 

later than the date originally 

promulgated. 

Following promulgation of the 2004 

final PCWP rule, four petitions for 

judicial review of the final PCWP rule 

were filed with the Court by NRDC and 

Sierra Club (No. 04–1323, D.C. Cir.), EIP 

(No. 04–1235, D.C. Cir.), LouisianaPacific Corporation (No. 04–1328, D.C. 

Cir.), and Norbord Incorporated (No. 

04–1329, D.C. Cir.). The four cases were 

consolidated. The NRDC, Sierra Club, 

and EIP petitions for judicial review 2

addressed three major concerns: (1) 

EPA’s legal authority to create and delist 

a low-risk subcategory; (2) EPA’s resetting of the compliance date; and (3) 

EPA’s failure to set emission standards 

for HAP from all emission points. In 

March 2007, before the Court decided 

the PCWP case, it ruled in Sierra Club, 

479 F.3d 875, that ‘‘EPA’s failure to set 

floors for existing small tunnel brick 

kilns and new periodic brick kilns 

violated [the] CAA * * * noting that the 

court had held unlawful EPA’s ‘‘no 

control’’ emissions floors for categories 

in which the best performers used no 

emission control technology.’’

Subsequently, in April 2007, EPA 

requested a voluntary remand and 

vacatur of the 2004 final MACT 

determinations for PCWP emissions 

points that do not have emission limits 

(i.e., the ‘‘no emission reduction’’

MACT determinations also commonly 

known as ‘‘no-control MACT floors’’). 

On June 19, 2007, the Court issued its 

opinion remanding and vacating EPA’s 

no emission reduction MACT 

determinations, the low-risk provisions, 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
61062 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 208 / Monday, October 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

and the October 1, 2008 compliance 

date. 

While today’s rule implements the 

Court’s order regarding the compliance 

date and low-risk subcategory 

provisions, EPA will separately 

reconsider the MACT determinations for 

the emission points for which EPA had 

previously determined MACT to be ‘‘no 

emissions reduction,’’ and publish our 

proposed responses to the Court’s 

remand of those decisions in a separate 

notice. 

II. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

is, therefore, not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

Because the agency has made a ‘‘good 

cause’’ finding that this action is not 

subject to notice-and-comment 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedure Act or any other statute (see 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this preamble), it is not subject to the 

regulatory flexibility provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, 

et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). In addition, 

this action does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments or 

impose a significant intergovernmental 

mandate, as described in sections 203 

and 204 of UMRA. This rule also does 

not significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of tribal governments, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 6, 2000). 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 (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule 

also is not subject to Executive Order 

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

because it is not economically 

significant. 

This final rule does not involve 

technical standards; thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. The rule also 

does not involve special consideration 

of environmental justice related issues 

as required by Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In 

issuing this rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate ambiguity 

as required by section 3 of Executive 

Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 

1996). EPA has complied with 

Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, 

March 15, 1988) by examining the 

takings implications of the rule in 

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney 

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for 

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of 

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under 

the executive order. This rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). EPA’s compliance 

with these statutes and Executive 

Orders for the underlying rule is 

discussed in the July 30, 2004 Federal 

Register notice. 

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

(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. Section 808 allows 

the issuing agency to make a rule 

effective sooner than otherwise 

provided by the CRA if the agency 

makes a good cause finding that notice 

and public procedure is impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest. This determination must be 

supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 

808(2). As stated previously, EPA has 

made such a good cause finding, 

including the reasons therefore. EPA 

will submit a report containing this rule 

and other required information to the 

United States Senate, the United States 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This action is not 

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

804(2). 

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 18, 2007. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(54), (f)(3) and 

(f)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporation by reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(54) ASTM D6348–03, Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Gaseous 

Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform Infrared 

(FTIR) Spectroscopy, incorporation by 

reference (IBR) approved for Table 4 to 

Subpart DDDD of this part as specified 

in the subpart. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

* * * * * 

(3) NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP–

99.02, Impinger/Canister Source 

Sampling Method for Selected HAPs 

and Other Compounds at Wood 

Products Facilities, January 2004, 

Methods Manual, NCASI, Research 

Triangle Park, NC, IBR approved for 

Table 4 to Subpart DDDD of this part. 

(4) NCASI Method ISS/FP A105.01, 

Impinger Source Sampling Method for 

Selected Aldehydes, Ketones, and Polar 

Compounds, December 2005, Methods 

Manual, NCASI, Research Triangle Park, 

NC, IBR approved for table 4 to subpart 

DDDD of this part. 

* * * * * 

Subpart DDDD—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Plywood and Composite 

Wood Products—[Amended] 

■ 3. Section 63.2231 is amended by 

revising the introductory paragraph to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.2231 Does this subpart apply to me? 

This subpart applies to you if you 

meet the criteria in paragraphs (a) and 

(b) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 63.2233 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.2233 When do I have to comply with 

this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(b) If you have an existing affected 

source, you must comply with the 

compliance options, operating 

requirements, and work practice 

requirements for existing sources no 

later than October 1, 2007. 

(c) If you have an area source that 

increases its emissions or its potential to 

emit such that it becomes a major source 

of HAP, you must be in compliance 

with this subpart by October 1, 2007 or 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 208 / Monday, October 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 61063 

upon initial startup of your affected 

source as a major source, whichever is 

later. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 63.2291 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) introductory text 

and removing paragraph (c)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.2291 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(c) The authorities that will not be 

delegated to State, local, or tribal 

agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (4) of this section. 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * 

Appendices B and C—[Removed] 

■ 6. Appendices B and C to Subpart 

DDDD of part 63 are removed. 

[FR Doc. 07–5295 Filed 10–26–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[Docket No. EPA–R05–RCRA–2007–0397; 

FRL–8488–6] 

Ohio: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is granting Ohio Final 

authorization of the changes to its 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). The agency published a 

proposed rule on June 6, 2007 at 72 FR 

31237 and provided for public 

comment. The public comment period 

ended on July 6, 2007. We received no 

comments. No further opportunity for 

comment will be provided. EPA has 

determined that these changes satisfy all 

requirements needed to qualify for Final 

authorization, and is proposing to 

authorize the State’s changes through 

this proposed final action. 

DATES: The final authorization will be 

effective on October 29, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R05–RCRA–

2007–0397. All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some of the information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy. 

You may view and copy Ohio’s 

application from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the 

following addresses: U.S. EPA Region 5, 

DM–7J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois, contact: Gary Westefer 

(312) 886–7450; or Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency, Lazarus Government 

Center, 50 West Town Street, Suite 700, 

Columbus, Ohio, contact: Jeff Mayhugh 

(614) 644–2950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Westefer, Ohio Regulatory Specialist, 

U.S. EPA Region 5, DM–7J, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–7450, e-mail 

westefer.gary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why Are Revisions to State 

Programs Necessary? 

States which have received final 

authorization from 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 

program. As the Federal program 

changes, States must change their 

programs and ask EPA to authorize the 

changes. Changes to State 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 EPA’s regulations in 40 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 

260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279. 

B. What Decisions Have We Made in 

This Rule? 

We conclude that Ohio’s application 

to revise its authorized program meets 

all of the statutory and regulatory 

requirements established by RCRA. 

Therefore, we are granting Ohio final 

authorization to operate its hazardous 

waste program with the changes 

described in the authorization 

application. Ohio has responsibility for 

permitting Treatment, Storage, and 

Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its 

borders (except in Indian Country) and 

for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA 

program described in its revised 

program application, subject to the 

limitations of the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). 

New Federal requirements and 

prohibitions imposed by Federal 

regulations that EPA promulgates under 

the authority of HSWA take effect in 

authorized States before they are 

authorized for the requirements. Thus, 

EPA will implement those requirements 

and prohibitions in Ohio, including 

issuing permits, until the State is 

granted authorization to do so. 

C. What Is the Effect of Today’s 

Authorization Decision? 

The effect of this decision is that a 

facility in Ohio subject to RCRA will 

now have to comply with the authorized 

State requirements instead of the 

equivalent Federal requirements in 

order to comply with RCRA. Ohio has 

enforcement responsibilities under its 

State hazardous waste program for 

violations of such program, but EPA 

retains its authority under RCRA 

sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, 

which include, among others, authority 

to: 

1. Do inspections, and require 

monitoring, tests, analyses or reports 

2. Enforce RCRA requirements and 

suspend or revoke permits 

3. Take enforcement actions 

regardless of whether the State has 

taken its own actions 

This action does not impose 

additional requirements on the 

regulated community because the 

regulations for which Ohio is being 

authorized by today’s action are already 

effective, and are not changed by today’s 

action. 

D. Proposed Rule 

On June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31237), EPA 

published a proposed rule. In that rule 

we proposed granting authorization of 

changes to Ohio’s hazardous waste 

program and opened our decision to 

public comment. The agency received 

no comments on this proposal. EPA 

found Ohio’s RCRA program to be 

satisfactory. 

E. What Has Ohio Previously Been 

Authorized for? 

Ohio initially received final 

authorization on June 28, 1989, effective 

June 30, 1989 (54 FR 27170) to 

implement the RCRA hazardous waste 

management program. We granted 

authorization for changes to their 

program on April 8, 1991, effective June 

7, 1991 (56 FR 14203) as corrected June 

19, 1991, effective August 19, 1991 (56 

FR 28088); July 27, 1995, effective 

September 25, 1995 (60 FR 38502); 

October 23, 1996, effective December 

23, 1996 (61 FR 54950); January 24, 

2003, effective January 24, 2003 (68 FR 

3429); and January 20, 2006, effective 

January 20, 2006 (71 FR 3220). 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES