60398 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Departments, the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the 

Combatant Commands, the Office of the 

Inspector General of the Department of 

Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD 

Field Activities, and all other 

organizational entities in the 

Department of Defense (hereafter 

referred to collectively as the ‘‘DoD 

Components’’). 

* * * * * 

4. Section 285.3 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 285.3 Policy. 

* * * * * 

(a) Promote transparency and 

accountability by adopting a 

presumption in favor of disclosure in all 

decisions involving the FOIA and 

responding promptly to requests in a 

spirit of cooperation. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 285.4 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1), the first 

sentence of paragraph (a)(3), paragraph 

(a)(4), and paragraph (e)(7). 

b. Adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (e)(5). 

The revisions and amendments read 

as follows: 

§ 285.4 Responsibilities. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Serve as the DoD Chief FOIA 

Officer in accordance with Section 552 

of title 5, United States Code. 

* * * * * 

(3) Designate the FOIA Public 

Liaisons for the Department of Defense 

in accordance with Section 552 of title 

5, United States Code. * * * 

(4) Prepare and submit to the Attorney 

General the DoD Annual Freedom of 

Information Act Report as required by 5 

U.S.C., and other reports as required by 

E.O. 13392 and Attorney General 

Memorandum, ‘‘The Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA),’’ March 19, 

2009. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(5) * * * Additionally, DoD 

Component FOIA offices will provide 

DFOIPO with information copies of 

significant FOIA requests and 

responses. 

* * * * * 

(7) Submit to the DA&M, through 

DFOIPO, DoD Component inputs to the 

DoD FOIA Annual Report prescribed in 

32 CFR part 286 and E.O. 13392 and 

other reports or data requested by the 

DA&M. All such submissions will be 

made by the FOIA Public Liaisons. 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 24, 2010. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24537 Filed 9–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R09–RCRA–2010–0598; FRL–9205–1] 

California: Proposed Authorization of 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: California has applied to EPA 

for final authorization of certain changes 

to its hazardous waste program under 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has 

reviewed California’s application and 

made the tentative decision that these 

changes satisfy all requirements needed 

to qualify for final authorization, and is 

proposing to authorize the State’s 

changes. EPA is also proposing that the 

State’s requirements regulating facilities 

that are conditionally exempt from the 

federal rules as Conditionally Exempt 

Small Quantity Generators (‘‘CESQGs’’) 

be treated as more stringent than federal 

requirements, thereby making these 

provisions federally enforceable. 

DATES: EPA must receive written 

comments on California’s application 

for authorization for changes to its 

hazardous waste management program 

by November 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

RCRA–2010–0598 by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: smith.rebecca@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (415) 947–3533 (prior to 

faxing, please notify Rebecca Smith at 

415–972–3313) 

• Mail: Send written comments to: 

Rebecca Smith, WST–2, EPA Region 9, 

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Rebecca 

Smith, EPA Region 9 (WST–2), 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the office’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: We must receive your 

comments by November 1, 2010. Direct 

your comments to Docket ID No. EPA– 

R09–RCRA–2010–0598. EPA’s policy is 

that all comments received will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information the disclosure of which is 

restricted by statute, or you make 

special arrangements with the EPA 

contact. Do not submit information that 

you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If you do 

so, this information will become a part 

of the public record, unless you have 

made arrangements with EPA prior to 

the submittal of your comments. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. (For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm). 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some 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 California’s 

application at the following addresses: 

California Environmental Protection 

Agency, Environmental Services Center, 

1001 I Street, 22nd Floor, Sacramento, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60399 

CA 95814, Phone: (916) 324–0912, from 

8 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Thursday 

(appointment preferred but not 

required); and U.S. EPA Region 9 

Library-Information Center, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105, Phone: (415) 947–4406, from 9 

a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

Monday through Thursday. Copy 

services are not available in Sacramento, 

but should be arranged by the viewer. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebecca Smith, EPA Region 9 (WST–2), 

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105, Phone: (415) 972–3313. E-mail: 

smith.rebecca@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 revise their 

programs and ask EPA to authorize the 

revisions. Revisions 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? 

EPA has made the tentative 

determination that California’s 

application to revise its authorized 

program meets all of the statutory and 

regulatory requirements established by 

RCRA. Therefore, we are proposing to 

grant California final authorization to 

operate its hazardous waste program 

with the changes described in this 

authorization application. California 

will have responsibility for permitting 

treatment, storage, and disposal 

facilities (TSDFs) within its borders 

(except in Indian country) and for 

carrying out all authorized aspects of 

the RCRA program described in its 

revised program application, subject to 

the limitations of RCRA’s Hazardous 

and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 

(HSWA). New Federal requirements and 

prohibitions imposed by HSWA 

regulations take effect as a matter of 

Federal law in authorized states before 

those states are authorized for such 

requirements. Thus, EPA will 

implement those requirements and 

prohibitions in California, including 

issuing permits, until the State is 

granted authorization to do so. 

C. What is the effect of this 

authorization decision? 

If California is authorized for these 

changes, a facility in California subject 

to RCRA will have to comply with the 

authorized State requirements instead of 

the corresponding Federal requirements 

in order to comply with RCRA. 

Additionally, facilities must comply 

with certain Federal requirements, i.e., 

HSWA regulations issued by EPA for 

which California has not received 

authorization, and RCRA requirements 

that are not supplanted by authorized 

State-issued requirements such as 

requirements for the exportation of 

hazardous waste. California continues to 

have enforcement responsibilities under 

its State law to pursue violations of its 

hazardous waste management program. 

EPA continues to have independent 

enforcement authority under RCRA 

sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, 

which include, among others, the 

authority to: 

• Do inspections, and require 

monitoring, tests, analyses or reports; 

• Enforce RCRA requirements 

(including State-issued statutes and 

regulations that are authorized by EPA 

and any applicable Federally-issued 

statutes and regulations) and suspend or 

revoke permits; and 

• Take enforcement actions regardless 

of whether the State has taken its own 

actions. 

The action to approve these revisions 

would not impose additional 

requirements on the regulated 

community because the regulations for 

which California will be authorized are 

already effective under State law and 

are not changed by the act of 

authorization. 

D. What happens if EPA receives 

comments that oppose this action? 

If EPA receives comments that oppose 

this authorization, we will address those 

comments in a later final rule. You may 

not have another opportunity to 

comment. If you want to comment on 

this authorization, you must do so at 

this time. 

E. For what has California previously 

been authorized? 

California initially received final 

authorization for the base RCRA 

program on July 23, 1992, effective 

August 1, 1992 (57 FR 32726). EPA 

granted authorization for changes to 

California’s program on September 26, 

2001, effective September 26, 2001 (66 

FR 49118). 

F. What changes are we proposing with 

this action? 

On August 2, 2004 and August 17, 

2004 California submitted final 

complete program revision applications, 

seeking authorization of those changes 

in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We 

have made a tentative determination 

that California’s hazardous waste 

program revisions satisfy all of the 

requirements necessary to qualify for 

final authorization. 

California has applied for only the 

Federal changes relating to the 

corrective action management units, the 

Bevill exclusion and the land disposal 

restrictions. There are several changes to 

the Federal program for which 

California has not yet applied for 

authorization. The major areas of 

changes for which California has not yet 

applied for authorization are: The used 

oil regulations; consolidated liability 

requirements; military munitions; 

universal waste; modification to the 

hazardous waste manifest system; 

standardized permit requirements; 

burden reduction regulations; and the 

NESHAPS: Final Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous 

Waste Combustors (MACT Rule). 

California submits packages to EPA 

relating to its efforts to seek 

authorization for updates to its program 

based on revisions to the Federal 

program. EPA publishes a series of 

checklists to aid California and the other 

states in such efforts (see EPA’s RCRA 

State Authorization Web page at 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/ 

hazwaste/state/revision/program.htm). 

Each checklist generally reflects changes 

made to the Federal regulations 

pursuant to a particular Federal 

Register notice. California’s submittals 

have been grouped into general 

categories (e.g., Corrective Action 

Management Units, Land Disposal 

Restrictions, etc.). Each submittal may 

have reflected changes based on one or 

more Federal Register notices and 

would have thus referenced one or more 

corresponding checklists. 

What follows is a summary, for each 

general category identified by California 

in its submittals, of the specific subjects 

of changes to the Federal program for 

that category. Although the changes to 

the Federal program are identified in the 

summary, California did not necessarily 

make revisions to its program as a result 

of each Federal revision noted. For 

example, certain revisions to the Federal 

program may have resulted in less 

stringent regulation than that which 

previously existed. Since states may 

maintain programs which are more 

stringent than the Federal program, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
60400 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

states have the option whether or not to 

adopt such revisions. 

1. Changes California Identified as 

Relating to Corrective Action 

Management Units 

We are proposing to grant California 

final authorization for all revisions to its 

program due to certain changes to the 

Federal Corrective Action Management 

Unit program. 

2. Changes California Identified as 

Relating to Land Disposal Restrictions 

Phases 3 and 4 

We are proposing to grant California 

final authorization for all revisions, if 

any, to its program due to certain 

changes to the Federal program in the 

following areas: (1) Land Disposal 

Restrictions Phase III—Decharacterized 

Wastewaters; (2) Emergency Extension 

of the K088 Capacity Variance; (3) Land 

Disposal Restrictions Phase IV— 

Treatment Standards for Wood 

Preserving Wastes, Paperwork 

Reduction and Streamlining, 

Exemptions From RCRA for Certain 

Processed Materials; (4) Emergency 

Revision of the Carbamate Land 

Disposal Restrictions; (5) Clarification of 

Standards for Hazardous Waste LDR 

Treatment Variances; (6) Treatment 

Standards for Metal Wastes and Mineral 

Processing Wastes; (7) Hazardous Soils 

Treatment Standards and Exclusions; (8) 

Administrative Stay for Zinc 

Micronutrient Fertilizers; (9) Emergency 

Revision of the Land Disposal 

Restrictions (LDR) Treatment Standards 

for Listed Hazardous Wastes from 

Carbamate Production; (10) Extension of 

Compliance Date for Characteristic 

Slags; (11) Treatment Standards for 

Spent Potliners from Primary 

Aluminum Reduction (K088); (12) 

Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing and LDRs 

for Newly Identified Wastes; (13) 

Deferral for PCBs in Soil; and (14) 

Certain Land Disposal Restrictions 

Technical Corrections and 

Clarifications. Note that California has 

not yet adopted the provisions 

addressed by the following Federal final 

rules which are also part of Phase IV of 

the land disposal restrictions 

requirements: LDR Revision Checklist 

195 (66 FR 58258, November 20, 2001, 

as amended by 67 FR 17119, April 9, 

2002); non-LDR Revision Checklist 200 

(67 FR 28393, July 24, 2002); and LDR 

Revision Checklist 201 (67 FR 62618, 

October 7, 2002). 

3. Changes California Identified as 

Relating to the Bevill Exclusion 

We are proposing to grant California 

final authorization for all revisions to its 

program due to certain changes to the 

Federal program in the Bevill Exclusion 

requirements. 

The following table shows the Federal 

and analogous State provisions involved 

in this tentative decision and the 

relevant corresponding checklists: 

Description of Federal requirement (checklist #) Federal Register page and date Analogous State authority 

40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR), 

260.10 Corrective Action Management Units 

(CAMU), checklist 196.

(196) 67 FR 2962, Jan. 22, 2002 .................... (196) Title 22, California code of Regulations 

(22 CCR) 66260.10, amended July 19, 

2004. 

40 CFR 261.1 Land Disposal Restrictions 

(LDR), checklist 157.

(157) 62 FR 25998, May 12, 1997 .................. (157) California did not adopt these exclusions. 

40 CFR 261.2 LDR, checklists 157, 179 ........... (179) 64 FR 2548, May 11, 1999 .................... (157, 179) California did not adopt these regulations. 

40 CFR 261.3, Bevill Exclusion, checklist 167E (167E) 63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998 ................ (167E) 66261.3, amended March 15, 2003. 

40 CFR 261.4, Bevill Exclusion, checklist 167E .......................................................................... (167E) 66261.4, amended November 12, 

1998. 

40 CFR 262.34 LDR, checklists 179, 183 ......... (183) 64 FR 56469, October 20, 1999 ............ (179, 183) 22 CCR 66262.34, amended Sept. 

11, 2000. 

40 CFR 264.550 through 264.552 CAMU, 

checklist 196.

.......................................................................... (196) 22 CCR 66264.550 through 66264.552, 

amended July 19, 2004. 

40 CFR 264.554 and 264.555 CAMU, checklist 

196.

.......................................................................... (196) California did not adopt these regulations. 

40 CFR 268.1 LDR, checklists 151, 157 ........... (151) 61 FR 15566 April 8, 1996; [amended 

61 FR 15660 April 8, 1996; 61 FR 19117 

April 30, 1996; 61 FR 33680 June 28, 

1996; 61 FR 36419 July 10, 1996; 61 FR 

43924 August 26, 1996; and 62 FR 7502 

February 19, 1997].

(151, 157) 22 CCR 66268.1, amended June 

4, 1999 

40 CFR 268.2 LDR, checklists 151, 167A, 

167B, 179.

(167A, 167B) 63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998 

[amended 63 FR 31266 June 8, 1998].

(151, 167A, 167B, 179) 22 CCR 66260.10, 

amended Feb. 26, 2004. 

40 CFR 268.3(b) LDR checklist 151 .................. .......................................................................... (151) California Health and Safety Code 

(HSC) Division 20, 25179.2(e) enacted 

1995. California did not adopt the dilution 

exception. 

40 CFR 268.3(c) and (d) LDR checklists 151, 

167A.

.......................................................................... (151, 167A) 22 CCR 66268.3(b) and (c) 

amended June 4, 1999 

40 CFR 268.4 LDR checklist 167C .................... (167C) 63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998 [amended 63 FR 31266, June 8, 1998].(167C) HSC, Division 20, 25179.11 amended 

1996. 22 CCR 66268.1 amended June 4, 

1999. 

40 CFR 268.7 LDR, checklists 151, 157, 167B, 

167C, 179, 183.

.......................................................................... (151, 157, 167B, 167C, 179, 183) 22 CCR 

66268.7 amended Feb. 26, 2004; (157) 

California did not adopt the Federal exemption at 40 CFR 268.7(b)(6). 

40 CFR 268.9 LDR checklists 151, 157, 179 .... .......................................................................... (151, 157, 179) 22 CCR 66268.9 amended 

Feb. 26, 2004. 

40 CFR 268.30 LDR checklist 157 .................... .......................................................................... (157) 22 CCR 66268.30 amended June 4, 

1999. 

40 CFR 268.32 LDR checklists 157, 190 .......... (190) 65 FR 81373 December 26, 2000 ......... (157, 190) 22 CCR 66268.31.5 amended July 

3, 2002. 

40 CFR 268.33 LDR checklist 189 .................... (189) 65 FR 67068, November 8, 2000 .......... (189) 22 CCR 66268.33 amended July 3, 

2002. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60401 

Description of Federal requirement (checklist #) Federal Register page and date Analogous State authority 

40 CFR 268.34 LDR checklists 167A, 172 ........ (167A, 172) 63 FR 48124, September 9, 1998 (167A, 172) 22 CCR 66268.34 amended 

Sept. 11, 2000. 

40 CFR 268.39 LDR checklists 151, 155, 159, 

160, 173.

(155) 62 FR 1992, January 14, 1997; (160) 

62 FR 37694, July 14, 1997; (173) 63 FR 

51254, September 24, 1998.

(151, 155, 159, 160, 173) 22 CCR 66268.39 

amended Sept. 11, 2000. 

40 CFR 268.40 LDR checklists 151, 161, 167A, 

167C, 171, 179, 183.

(161) 62 FR 45568, August 28, 1997; (170) 

63 FR 46332 August 31, 1998; (171) 63 FR 

47410, September 4, 1998.

(151, 161, 167A, 167C, 171, 179, 183) 22 

CCR 66268.40 amended July 3, 2002. 

40 CFR 268.40/Table checklists 151, 157, 

167A, 167C, 171, 173 179, 183, 189.

.......................................................................... (151, 157, 167A, 167C, 171, 173 179, 183, 

189) 22 CCR 66268.40/Table amended 

July 3, 2002. 

40 CFR 268.42 LDR checklists 151, 157, 167C .......................................................................... (151, 157, 167C) 22 CCR 66268.42 amended 

Feb. 26, 2004. 

40 CFR 268.44(a) LDR checklist 162 ................ (162) 62 FR 64504, December 5, 1997 .......... (162) California is not seeking to have this 

provision delegated. 

40 CFR 268.44(h), (m) LDR checklists 162, 

167B.

.......................................................................... (162, 167B) 22 CCR 66268.44 amended June 

4, 1999. 

40 CFR 268.45 LDR checklist 167C .................. .......................................................................... (167C) 22 CCR 66268.45 amended June 4, 

1999. 

40 CFR 268.48(a)/Table UTS LDR checklists 

151, 161, 167A, 167C, 171, 179, 189, 190.

.......................................................................... (151, 161, 167A, 167C, 171, 179, 189, 190) 

22 CCR 66268.48(a)/Table UTS amended 

July 3, 2002. 

40 CFR 268.49 LDR checklists 167B, 183, 179, 

190.

.......................................................................... (167B, 183, 179, 190) 22 CCR 66268.49 

amended July 3, 2002. 

40 CFR 268, Appendices I, II, X LDR checklist 

157.

.......................................................................... (157) 22 CCR, Chapter 18, Appendices I, II, X 

[reserved] amended June 4, 1999. 

40 CFR 268, Appendix III LDR checklists 157, 

190.

.......................................................................... (157, 190) 22 CCR Chapter 18, Appendices 

III amended July 3, 2002. 

40 CFR 268, Appendix VI LDR checklist 157 .... .......................................................................... (157) 22 CCR Chapter 18, Appendices VI 

amended June 4, 1999. 

40 CFR 268, Appendix VII/Table 1 LDR checklists 157, 167C, 192B.(192B) 66 FR 27266, May 16, 2001 ................ (157, 167C, 192B) 22 CCR Chapter 18, Appendix VII/Table 1 amended July 3, 2002. 

40 CFR 268, Appendix VII/Table 2 and Appendix VIII LDR checklists 157, 167C........................................................................... (157, 167C) 22 CCR Chapter 18, Appendix 

VII/Table 2 amended June 4, 1999. 

40 CFR 268, Appendix XI LDR checklist 151 .... .......................................................................... (151) 22 CCR Chapter 18, Appendix XI 

amended June 4, 1999. 

G. Where are the revised state rules 

different from the federal rules? 

State requirements that go beyond the 

scope of the Federal program are not 

part of the authorized program and EPA 

cannot enforce them. Although you 

must comply with these requirements in 

accordance with California law, they are 

not RCRA requirements. We consider 

that the following State requirements, 

which pertain to the revisions involved 

in this tentative decision, go beyond the 

scope of the Federal program. 

1. The definition of ‘‘remediation 

waste’’ at 22 CCR. 66260.10 is broader in 

scope than the Federal definition at 40 

CFR 260.10 only to the extent 

California’s definition includes 

hazardous substances which are neither 

‘‘hazardous wastes’’ nor ‘‘‘solid wastes.’’ 

2. California regulation subjects 

CAMUs for non-RCRA hazardous waste 

to state-specific requirements under 22 

CCR 66264.552.5. The state requirement 

at 22 CCR 66264.552.5 is broader in 

scope because the federal program does 

not consider these wastes to be 

hazardous. In addition, 22 CCR 

66264.550(a) is also considered broader 

in scope to the extent that it subjects 

non-RCRA wastes to the state-only 

CAMU requirements. 

3. California did not adopt the Federal 

definitions at 40 CFR 261.1(c)(9)–(12), 

261.4(a)(13)–(14), and 261.6(a)(3)(ii) 

addressing scrap metals or the related 

Federal changes to 40 CFR 261.2(c)(4)/ 

Table. California is broader in scope to 

the extent that its statutory provisions at 

HS&C § 25143.2(a) and (e), do not 

exclude these scrap metals from 

regulation. 

4. The California provisions at 22 CCR 

66268.7(a)-(c) are broader in scope than 

the Federal land disposal treatment 

provisions at 40 CFR 268.7(a)-(c) to the 

extent that the State’s provisions also 

apply to non-RCRA wastes. Similarly, 

California’s variance petition provisions 

at 22 CCR 66268.44(c) and 66268.44(h) 

are also broader in scope to the extent 

that they apply to non-RCRA wastes. 

H. What is EPA’s position on 

California’s regulation of conditionally 

exempt small quantity generators? 

When California initially received 

final authorization for the base RCRA 

program on July 23, 1992, effective 

August 1, 1992 (57 FR 32726), EPA 

Pacific Southwest Region (Region IX) 

identified California’s failure to adopt 

the federal exclusion for conditionally 

exempt small quantity generators 

(‘‘CESQGs’’) (found, generally, at 40 CFR 

261.5) as ‘‘broader in scope’’ than the 

federal program. (See also 40 CFR 

270.1(c)(2)(iii).) However, EPA’s 

position regarding the absence of the 

conditional exclusion for CESQGs in a 

state program has changed and EPA 

now clearly regards the absence of any 

such exclusion as more stringent than 

the federal program, making state 

regulation of CESQGs federally 

enforceable when authorized. See 

United States v. Southern Union Co., 

643 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D.R.I. 2009). In 

order to harmonize our authorization of 

California’s program with EPA’s 

position with respect to CESQGs, EPA is 

hereby proposing to redesignate 

California’s regulation of CESQGs as 

more stringent than the federal program. 

EPA is also seeking public comment on 

this proposed change to California’s 

authorization. If EPA makes a final 

determination that California’s 

regulation of CESQGs is more stringent 

than the federal program, then the 

State’s regulation of such federally 

exempt CESQGs will be part of the 

authorized state program and will be 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
60402 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

federally enforceable within the State of 

California. Specifically, this change will 

allow federal enforcement of State 

requirements applicable to CESQGs who 

are conditionally exempt under the 

federal provisions found at 40 CFR 

261.5, 266.100(b)(3) and 270.1(c)(2)(iii). 

This change will not result in any new 

requirements on CESQGs, but will only 

mean that the more stringent State 

requirements for CESQGs will be 

federally enforceable. 

I. Who handles permits after the 

authorization takes effect? 

California will issue permits for all 

the provisions for which it is authorized 

and will administer the permits it 

issues. All permits issued by EPA prior 

to California being authorized for these 

revisions, if any, will continue in force 

until the effective date of the State’s 

issuance or denial of a State RCRA 

permit, or the permit otherwise expires 

or is revoked. California will administer 

any RCRA hazardous waste permits or 

portions of permits which EPA issued 

prior to the effective date of this 

authorization until such time as 

California has issued a corresponding 

State permit. EPA will not issue any 

more new permits or new portions of 

permits for provisions for which 

California is authorized after the 

effective date of this authorization. EPA 

will retain responsibility to issue 

permits needed for HSWA requirements 

for which California is not yet 

authorized. 

J. How would authorizing California for 

these revisions affect Indian country 

(18 U.S.C. Section 1151) in California? 

California is not authorized to carry 

out its hazardous waste program in 

Indian country within the State. Indian 

country includes all lands within the 

exterior boundaries of an Indian 

reservation, any land held in trust by 

the United States for an Indian tribe 

whether or not formally designated as 

an Indian reservation, and any other 

land, whether within or outside of an 

Indian reservation, that qualifies as 

Indian country under 18 U.S.C. 1151. A 

list of Indian Tribes in California can be 

found on the Web at http:// 

www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs.html 

under Tribal Leaders Directory. 

Therefore, this proposed action would 

have no effect on the Indian country 

within the State’s borders. EPA will 

continue to implement and administer 

the RCRA program in Indian country 

within the State. 

K. What is codification and is EPA 

codifying California’s hazardous waste 

management program as authorized in 

this rule? 

Codification is the process of placing 

the State’s statutes and regulations that 

comprise the State’s authorized 

hazardous waste management program 

into the Code of Federal Regulations. 

We do this by referencing the 

authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 

272. We reserve the amendment of 40 

CFR part 272, subpart F for this 

authorization of California’s program 

changes until a later date. 

L. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This proposed rule only authorizes 

hazardous waste requirements pursuant 

to RCRA 3006 and imposes no 

requirements other than those imposed 

by State law. Therefore, this rule 

complies with applicable executive 

orders and statutory provisions as 

follows: 

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has exempted this proposed rule from 

its review under Executive Order (EO) 

12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

and therefore this action is not subject 

to review by OMB. 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, I certify that this proposed rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this proposed rule approves 

preexisting requirements under state 

law and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act. 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

EO 13132 does not apply to this 

proposed rule because it will not have 

federalism implications (i.e., substantial 

direct effects on the State, 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 described in 

EO 13132. 

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

EO13175 does not apply to this 

proposed rule because it will not have 

tribal implications (i.e., substantial 

direct effects on one or more Indian 

tribes, 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 

stated previously, this proposed action 

would have no effect on the Indian 

country within the State’s borders and 

EPA will continue to implement and 

administer the RCRA program in Indian 

country within the State. 

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health & 

Safety Risks 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it is not economically 

significant and it is not based on health 

or safety risks. 

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

EO 13211 because it is not a significant 

regulatory action as defined in EO 

12866. 

9. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

EPA approves State programs as long 

as they meet criteria required by RCRA, 

so it would be inconsistent with 

applicable law for EPA, in its review of 

a State program, to require the use of 

any particular voluntary consensus 

standard in place of another standard 

that meets the requirements of RCRA. 

Thus, Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advance Act 

does not apply to this proposed rule. 

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low 

Income Populations 

Because this rule addresses 

authorizing pre-existing State rules and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law and 

there are no anticipated significant 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects, the rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 12898. 

11. Executive Order 12988 

As required by section 3 of Executive 

Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2010 / Proposed Rules 60403 

1996), in issuing this proposed rule, 

EPA has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct. 

12. Executive Order 12630: Evaluation 

of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings 

EPA has complied with Executive 

Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 

1988) by examining the takings 

implications of the proposed 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Hazardous waste, Indians—lands, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: This notice is issued under the 

authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006 and 

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as 

amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b). 

Dated: September 13, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24001 Filed 9–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1