Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2000-0038-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Adequacy of State Permit Programs under RCRA Subtitle D; Direct Final Rule
Posted Date: 2000-01-12T05:00Z

[
Federal
Register:
January
12,
2000
(
Volume
65,
Number
8)]
[
Rules
and
Regulations]
[
Page
1814­
1817]
From
the
Federal
Register
Online
via
GPO
Access
[
wais.
access.
gpo.
gov]
[
DOCID:
fr12ja00­
21]

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
257
and
258
[
FRL­
6521­
4]

Adequacy
of
State
Permit
Programs
Under
RCRA
Subtitle
D
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Direct
final
rule.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

SUMMARY:
EPA
is
taking
direct
final
action
to
streamline
the
approval
process
for
specific
state
permit
programs
for
solid
waste
disposal
facilities
other
than
municipal
solid
waste
landfills
(
MSWLF)
that
receive
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
(
CESQG)
hazardous
waste.
States
whose
Subtitle
D
MSWLF
permit
programs
or
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
management
programs
have
been
reviewed
and
approved
or
authorized
by
EPA
are
eligible
for
this
streamlined
approval
process
if
their
state
programs
require
the
disposal
of
CESQG
hazardous
waste
in
suitable
facilities.
EPA
is
issuing
an
adequacy
determination
to
the
state
programs
for
Kansas,
Missouri,
and
Nebraska.
Elsewhere
in
the
proposed
rule
section
of
today's
Federal
Register,
EPA
is
proposing
the
program
adequacy
of
these
states
and
soliciting
comment
on
this
decision.
If
relevant
adverse
comments
are
received,
EPA
will
withdraw
this
direct
final
rule
of
program
adequacy
and
address
the
comments
in
a
subsequent
final
rule.
EPA
will
not
give
additional
opportunity
for
comment.
If
EPA
receives
relevant
adverse
comment
concerning
the
adequacy
of
only
certain
state
programs,
the
Agency's
withdrawal
of
the
direct
final
rule
will
only
apply
to
those
state
programs.
Comments
on
the
inclusion
or
exclusion
of
one
state
permit
program
will
not
affect
the
timing
of
the
decision
on
the
other
state
permit
programs.

DATES:
This
direct
final
rule
is
effective
on
April
11,
2000
unless
the
Agency
receives
timely
relevant
adverse
comments
by
February
11,
2000.
Should
the
Agency
receive
such
relevant
adverse
comments,
EPA
will
publish
a
timely
withdrawal
of
this
direct
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register
informing
the
public
that
the
rule
will
not
take
effect.

ADDRESSES:
Send
or
hand
deliver
an
original
and
one
copy
of
your
comments
referencing
docket
number
R7/
ARTD/
SWPP­
00­
01
to:
Region
VII
Information
Resource
Center,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
901
N.
5th
Street,
Kansas
City,
Kansas
66101.
Comments
may
also
be
submitted
electronically
through
the
Internet
to:
r7­
library@
epa.
gov.
Comments
in
electronic
format
should
also
be
identified
by
the
docket
number
listed
above.
All
electronic
comments
must
be
submitted
as
an
ASCII
file
avoiding
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
You
can
view
and
copy
documents
pertaining
to
this
regulatory
docket
in
the
Region
VII
Information
Resource
Center
(
Library),
located
on
the
Plaza
Level
at
the
address
noted
above.
The
Library
is
open
from
9
a.
m.
to
3
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
federal
holidays.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
general
information,
call
(
913)
551­
7241
or
TTY
(
913)
321­
9516.
For
information
on
accessing
paper
and
electronic
copies
of
documents
or
supporting
materials
relating
to
the
direct
final
rule,
or
for
information
on
specific
aspects
of
this
rule,
contact
Wes
Bartley,
U.
S.
EPA
Region
VII,
ARTD/
SWPP,
901
N.
5th
Street,
Kansas
City,
Kansas
66101,

[[
Page
1815]]

phone
(
913)
551­
7632,
or
by
e­
mail
at
bartley.
wes@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
The
official
record
for
this
action
will
be
kept
in
paper
form.
Therefore,
EPA
will
transfer
all
comments
received
electronically
into
paper
form
and
place
them
in
the
official
record,
which
will
also
include
all
comments
submitted
directly
in
writing.
The
official
record
is
the
paper
record
kept
at
the
address
in
ADDRESSES
at
the
beginning
of
this
document.
Responses
to
comments,
whether
the
comments
are
written
or
electronic,
will
be
in
a
document
in
the
Federal
Register
as
outlined
in
DATES
above
or
in
a
response
to
comments
document
placed
in
the
official
record
for
this
rulemaking.
EPA
will
not
immediately
reply
to
commenters
electronically
other
than
to
seek
clarification
of
electronic
comments
that
may
be
garbled
in
transmission
or
during
conversion
to
paper
form,
as
discussed
above.

A.
Background
Section
4010(
c)
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
requires
EPA
to
revise
the
criteria
for
facilities
that
accept
household
hazardous
waste
and
CESQG
hazardous
waste,
or
both.
On
October
9,
1991,
EPA
issued
Criteria
for
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Landfills
(
40
CFR
part
258).
These
criteria
include
location
restrictions
and
standards
for
design,
operation,
ground­
water
monitoring,
corrective
action,
financial
assurance,
and
closure/
postclosure
care
for
MSWLF.
MSWLF
typically
receive
both
household
hazardous
waste
and
CESQG
hazardous
waste.
On
July
1,
1996,
EPA
issued
the
revised
Criteria
for
Classification
of
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Facilities
and
Practices
to
address
solid
waste
disposal
facilities
other
than
MSWLF
that
receive
CESQG
waste
(
40
CFR
part
257,
subpart
B).
These
criteria
include
location
restrictions,
ground­
water
monitoring,
and
corrective
action
standards.
The
40
CFR
part
257,
subpart
B,
criteria
and
the
40
CFR
part
258
criteria,
referred
to
collectively
as
the
``
Subtitle
D
federal
revised
criteria,''
establish
minimum
federal
standards
to
ensure
that
all
Subtitle
D
facilities
that
may
receive
CESQG
wastes
are
designed
and
managed
in
a
manner
that
is
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
RCRA
section
4005,
as
amended
by
the
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
of
1984,
requires
states
to
develop
permitting
programs
or
other
systems
of
prior
approvals
and
conditions
to
ensure
that
solid
waste
disposal
units
that
receive
household
hazardous
waste
and
CESQG
hazardous
waste,
or
both,
comply
with
the
federal
revised
criteria.
Section
4005
also
requires
EPA
to
determine
the
adequacy
of
these
state
permit
programs.
To
fulfill
this
need,
the
Agency
issued
the
State
Implementation
Rule
(
SIR)
on
October
23,
1998
(
63
FR
57026)
to
give
a
process
for
approving
state
municipal
solid
waste
permit
programs.
The
SIR
specifies
the
criteria
that
state
MSWLF
permit
programs
must
satisfy
to
be
determined
adequate.
The
SIR
also
addresses
the
processes
that
should
be
used
for
approving
state
programs
for
non­
MSWLF
that
receive
CESQG
hazardous
waste.
Throughout
this
direct
final
rule,
the
term
``
approved
state''
refers
only
to
a
state
that
has
received
approval
for
its
MSWLF
permit
program
under
Subtitle
D
(
40
CFR
part
258)
and
the
term
``
authorized
state''
refers
only
to
a
state
that
has
an
authorized
hazardous
waste
permit
program
under
Subtitle
C
(
40
CFR
part
264).
Today's
final
adequacy
determination
is
intended
to
give
a
streamlined
approval
process
to
address
specific
state
programs
that
require
the
disposal
of
CESQG
hazardous
waste
in
suitable
facilities
and
whose
Subtitle
D
MSWLF
permit
programs
or
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
management
programs
have
been
reviewed
and
approved
or
authorized
by
the
Agency.
Today's
direct
final
rule
applies
to
the
state
programs
for
Kansas,
Missouri,
and
Nebraska.
Programs
developed
by
these
states
for
permitting
either
hazardous
waste
facilities
or
MSWLFs
have
been
reviewed
and
approved
or
authorized
by
the
Agency.
The
regulatory
programs
are
more
comprehensive
and/
or
more
stringent
than
the
part
257,
subpart
B,
criteria.
The
Agency
has
determined
that
the
above
states
have
submitted
the
documentation
that
would
have
been
needed
for
the
determination
of
permit
program
adequacy
under
40
CFR
part
257,
subpart
B.
Further,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
the
technical
review
conducted
for
either
``
approval''
of
MSWLF
permitting
programs
or
``
authorization''
of
hazardous
waste
permitting
programs
can
substitute
for
the
technical
review
of
the
standards
for
40
CFR
part
257,
subpart
B,
and
their
implementation
by
the
states.
The
states
that
are
today
receiving
a
final
determination
of
adequacy
had
previously
submitted
documentation
of
state
statutory
authorities
and
requirements
that
regulate
solid
waste
disposal
units
that
may
receive
CESQG
waste.
In
each
case,
state
statutes,
regulations,
and/
or
internal
policies
and
practices
were
reviewed
and
found
to
serve
as
the
basis
for
ensuring
that
the
state
permit
program
or
other
system
of
prior
approvals
and
conditions
had
adequate
authority
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
hazardous
waste
or
MSWLF
regulations,
as
appropriate.
The
technical
requirements
for
part
257,
subpart
B,
are
location
restrictions
and
requirements
for
ground­
water
monitoring,
corrective
action,
and
recordkeeping.
These
requirements
have
been
met
by
the
state
programs
listed
in
today's
final
determination.
The
three
states
considered
in
today's
determination
are
``
authorized''
states
that
have
authorized
hazardous
waste
permit
programs
under
Subtitle
C
(
40
CFR
part
264).
These
states
have
laws,
regulations,
or
guidance
in
place
providing
that
CESQG
hazardous
waste
may
be
lawfully
managed
in
a
RCRA
Subtitle
C
facility
(
see
61
FR
34264).
Also,
these
states
are
``
approved''
states
for
MSWLF
permit
programs
under
Subtitle
D
(
40
CFR
part
258).
However,
only
Kansas
and
Nebraska
have
laws,
regulations,
or
guidance
in
place
providing
that
CESQG
hazardous
waste
may
be
lawfully
managed
in
a
MSWLF
meeting
or
exceeding
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
258
(
see
61
FR
34264).
Management
of
CESQG
hazardous
waste
is
allowed
in
the
three
states
only
at
facilities
as
described
above.
For
all
states,
the
state
regulations
have
been
reviewed
by
EPA,
found
to
be
equal
to
or
more
stringent
than
40
CFR
part
257,
subpart
B,
and
approved.
Most
state
program
regulations
contain
additional
requirements
and
are
more
stringent
than
the
federal
requirements.
The
states
covered
by
today's
approval
have
permit
programs
or
other
systems
of
prior
approval
for
all
waste
disposal
units
in
their
jurisdictions
that
may
receive
CESQG
hazardous
waste.
These
states
provide
for
public
participation
in
permit
issuance
and
enforcement
as
specified
in
the
SIR
rule.
Finally,
EPA
believes
that
these
states
have
sufficient
compliance
monitoring
and
enforcement
authorities
to
take
action
against
any
owner
or
operator
that
fails
to
comply
with
regulations
applicable
to
waste
disposal
units
that
may
receive
CESQG
hazardous
waste.

B.
Decision
After
reviewing
the
states'
previous
submissions
for
approval
under
Subtitle
D
(
40
CFR
part
258)
and
authorization
under
Subtitle
C
(
40
CFR
part
264),
the
Agency
concludes
that
the
above
states
meet
all
of
the
statutory
and
regulatory
requirements
established
by
RCRA.
Accordingly,
the
above
states
are
granted
a
final
determination
of
adequacy
for
all
portions
of
their
permit
program
for
solid
waste
disposal
units
[[
Page
1816]]

that
may
receive
CESQG
hazardous
waste.
RCRA
section
4005(
a)
provides
that
citizens
may
use
the
citizen
suit
provisions
of
RCRA
section
7002
to
enforce
the
Federal
Criteria
for
Classification
of
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Facilities
and
Practices
in
40
CFR
part
257,
subpart
B,
independent
of
any
state
enforcement
program.
As
explained
in
the
preamble
to
40
CFR
part
257,
subpart
B,
EPA
expects
that
any
owner
or
operator
complying
with
the
provisions
of
a
state
program
approved
by
EPA
requiring
that
CESQG
hazardous
waste
be
disposed
of
in
either
a
Subtitle
C
facility
or
a
Subtitle
D
MSWLF
would
be
in
compliance
with
the
federal
criteria.
See
61
FR
34264
(
July
1,
1996).
Today's
action
will
become
effective
on
April
11,
2000
if
no
adverse
comments
are
received.

Related
Acts
of
Congress
and
Executive
Orders
A.
Executive
Order
12866
Under
Executive
Order
12866,
(
58
FR
51735
(
October
4,
1993))
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
a
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Order
defines
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
state,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.''
It
has
been
determined
that
this
rule
is
not
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
under
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866
and
is
therefore
not
subject
to
OMB
review.

B.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
Pursuant
to
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.,
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA)
of
1996),
whenever
an
agency
is
required
to
publish
a
notice
of
rulemaking
for
any
proposed
or
final
rule,
it
must
prepare
and
make
available
for
public
comment
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
that
describes
the
effect
of
the
rule
on
small
entities
(
i.
e.,
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions).
However,
no
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
is
required
if
the
head
of
an
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
The
SBREFA
amended
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
to
require
federal
agencies
to
provide
a
statement
of
the
factual
basis
for
certifying
that
a
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
The
following
discussion
explains
EPA's
determination.
This
rule
does
not
impose
any
new
burdens
on
small
entities.
It
merely
confirms
existing
needs
for
the
disposal
of
CESQG
waste
under
state
law.
This
proposal
does
not
impose
any
new
cost
burdens.
I
hereby
certify
that
this
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
This
rule,
therefore,
does
not
need
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis.
C.
The
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
Today's
proposal
is
in
compliance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
We
found
that
no
information
is
being
collected
from
the
states
for
this
direct
final
rule,
so
we
do
not
need
to
prepare
an
Information
Collection
Request.

D.
The
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104­
4,
establishes
requirements
for
federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
state,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
state,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
by
EPA
of
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
The
Agency's
analysis
of
compliance
with
UMRA
found
that
today's
rule
imposes
no
enforceable
duty
on
any
state,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
the
private
sector;
thus
today's
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
UMRA.

E.
Executive
Order
13045
``
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks''
(
62
FR
19885
(
April
23,
1997))
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
not
an
economically
significant
rule
as
defined
by
Executive
Order
12866,
and
because
it
does
not
involve
decisions
based
on
environmental
health
or
safety
risks.

F.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
NTTAA),
Public
Law
104­
113,
section
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
[[
Page
1817]]

provide
explanations
to
Congress,
through
OMB,
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
This
proposed
rulemaking
does
not
involve
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
considering
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

G.
Executive
Order
13132
Executive
Order
13132
(
Federalism,
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999)
revokes
and
replaces
Executive
Order
12612
(
Federalism)
and
Executive
Order
12875
(
Enhancing
the
Intergovernmental
Partnership).
Executive
Order
13132
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
state
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
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.''
Under
Executive
Order
13132,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
state
and
local
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
state
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
EPA
also
may
not
issue
a
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
direct
final
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.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.

H.
Executive
Order
13084
Under
Executive
Order
13084,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affects
the
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments,
and
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
on
those
communities,
unless
the
federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
the
tribal
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
those
governments.
If
EPA
complies
by
consulting,
Executive
Order
13084
requires
EPA
to
provide
OMB,
in
a
separately
identified
section
of
the
preamble
to
the
rule,
a
description
of
the
extent
of
EPA's
prior
consultation
with
representatives
of
affected
tribal
governments,
a
summary
of
the
nature
of
their
concerns,
and
a
statement
supporting
the
need
to
issue
the
regulation.
In
addition,
Executive
Order
13084
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
effective
process
permitting
elected
officials
and
other
representatives
of
Indian
tribal
governments
``
to
provide
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
on
matters
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
their
communities.''
Today's
rule
does
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
the
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments.
There
is
no
impact
to
tribal
governments
as
a
result
of
the
state
plan
approvals.
Accordingly,
the
requirements
of
section
3(
b)
of
Executive
Order
13084
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.

I.
Executive
Order
12898
EPA
is
committed
to
addressing
environmental
justice
concerns
and
is
assuming
a
leadership
role
in
environmental
justice
initiatives
to
enhance
environmental
quality
for
all
residents
of
the
United
States.
The
Agency's
goals
are
to
ensure
that
no
segment
of
the
population,
regardless
of
race,
color,
national
origin,
or
income,
bears
disproportionately
high
and
adverse
human
health
and
environmental
effects
as
a
result
of
EPA's
policies,
programs,
and
activities,
and
all
people
live
in
clean
and
sustainable
communities.
The
Agency
does
not
believe
that
today's
rule
granting
state
permit
program
approval
will
have
a
disproportionately
high
and
adverse
environmental
or
economic
impact
on
any
minority
or
low­
income
group,
or
on
any
other
type
of
affected
community.

J.
The
Congressional
Review
Act
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
1996
SBREFA,
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.
EPA
will
submit
a
report
containing
this
rule
and
other
required
information
to
the
U.
S.
Senate,
the
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States
prior
to
publication
of
the
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
A
major
rule
cannot
take
effect
until
60
days
after
it
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
action
is
not
a
``
major
rule''
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
804(
2).
This
rule
will
be
effective
April
11,
2000.

Authority:
This
document
is
issued
under
the
authority
of
sections
2002
and
4005
of
the
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Act
as
amended,
42
U.
S.
C.
6912
and
6945.

Dated:
December
29,
1999.
Dennis
Grams,
Regional
Administrator,
Region
VII.
[
FR
Doc.
00­
614
Filed
1­
11­
00;
8:
45
am]
BILLING
CODE
6560­
50­
P