Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Immediate final rule.
The State of Texas has applied for Final authorization of the changes to its Hazardous Waste Program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. (RCRA). The EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this immediate final action. The EPA is publishing this rule to authorize the changes without a prior proposal because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. Unless we get written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the decision to authorize the State of Texas's changes to their hazardous waste program will take effect as provided below. If we get comments that oppose this action, we will publish a document in the Federal Register withdrawing this rule before it takes effect and a separate document in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register will serve as a proposal to authorize the changes.
This final authorization will become effective on September 11, 2000 unless EPA receives adverse written comment by August 14, 2000. If EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this immediate final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that this authorization will not take effect.
Written comments, referring to Docket Number TX-00-01, should be sent to Alima Patterson Region 6 Regional Authorization Coordinator, Grants and Authorization Section (6PD-G), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 1145 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Copies of the Texas program revision application and the materials which EPA used in evaluating the revision are available for inspection and copying from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following addresses: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park S. Circle, Austin TX 78753-3087, (512) 239-1121 and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-6444.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alima Patterson (214) 665-8533.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental 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 Hazardous Waste 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 CFR parts 124, 260-266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.
B . What Is the Effect of Today's Authorization decision?
The effect of this decision is that a facility in Texas subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements (in RCRA Cluster VI listed in this document) instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Texas 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; and (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 Texas is being Start Printed Page 43247authorized by today's action are already effective, and are not changed by today's action.
C. What Has The State Of Texas Previously Been Authorized For?
Texas received final authorization to implement its Hazardous Waste Management Program on December 12, 1984, effective December 26, 1984 (49 FR 48300). This authorization was clarified in a notice published in the FR on March 26, 1985 (50 FR 11858). Texas received final authorization for revisions to its program in notices published in the Federal Register (FR) on January 31, 1986, effective October 4, 1985 (51 FR 3952); on December 18, 1986, effective February 17, 1987 (51 FR 45320). We authorized the following revisions: March 1, 1990, effective March 15, 1990 (55 FR 7318); on May 24, 1990, effective July 23, 1990 (55 FR 21383); on August 22, 1991, effective October 21, 1991 (56 FR 41626); on October 5, 1992, effective December 4, 1992 (57 FR 45719); on April 11, 1994, effective June 27, 1994, (59 FR 16987); on April 12, 1994, effective June 27, 1994 (59 FR 17273); September 12, 1997, effective November 26, 1997, (62 FR 47947); and on August 18, 1999, (64 FR 44836) effective October 18, 1999. Effective December 3, 1997 (62 FR 49163) and effective October 1999 (64 FR 49673), EPA incorporated by reference the State of Texas Base Program and additional program revisions in (RCRA Clusters III and IV) into the CFR.
On November 15, 1999, Texas submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of its program revision in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. The State of Texas has also adopted the regulations for Import and Export of Hazardous Waste. However, the requirements of the Import and Export regulations will be administered by the EPA and not the State because the exercise of foreign relations and international commerce powers is reserved to the Federal government under the United States Constitution.
In 1991, Texas Senate Bill 2 created the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) which combined the functions of the former Texas Water Commission and the former Texas Air Control Board. The transfer of functions to the TNRCC from the two agencies became effective on September 1, 1993.
Under the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act (codified in Chapter 361 of the Texas Health and Safety Code), the TNRCC has primary responsibility for administration of laws and regulations concerning hazardous waste. The TNRCC is authorized to administer the RCRA program. However, under the Texas Natural Resources Code, Title 3, and Texas Water Code, Chapter 27, waste (both hazardous and nonhazardous) resulting from activities associated with the exploration, development, or production of oil, gas, or geothermal resources, is regulated by the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC). A list of activities that generate wastes that are subject to the jurisdiction of the RRC is found at 16 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) § 3.8(a)(30) and at 30 TAC § 335.1. Such wastes are termed “oil and gas wastes.” The TNRCC has responsibility to administer the RCRA program, however, hazardous waste generated at natural gas or natural gas liquids processing plants or reservoir pressure maintenance or repressurizing plants are subject to the jurisdiction of the TNRCC until the RRC is authorized by EPA to administer the RCRA. When the RRC is authorized by EPA to administer the RCRA program for these wastes, jurisdiction over such hazardous waste will transfer from the TNRCC to the RRC. The EPA has designated the TNRCC to be the lead agency to coordinate RCRA activities between the two agencies. The EPA is responsible for the regulation of hazardous waste for which TNRCC has not been previously authorized.
Further clarification of the jurisdiction between the TNRCC and the RRC can be found in a separate document. The document which is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed effective May 31, 1998. The MOU clarified the jurisdiction between the agencies for waste associated with exploration, development, production and refining of oil and gas.
The TNRCC has rules necessary to implement EPA's RCRA Cluster VI revisions to the Federal Hazardous Waste Program made from July 1, 1995, to June 30, 1996. The TNRCC authority to incorporate Federal rules by reference can be found at Texas Government Code Annotated § 311.027 and adoption of the hazardous waste rules in general are pursuant to the following statutory provisions: (1) Texas Water Code Annotated § 5.103 (Vernon 1988 & Supplement 1998 and Supp. 1999), effective September 1995, as amended; (2) Texas Health and Safety Code Annotated § 361.024 (Vernon 1992 & supplement 1998 & 1999), effective September 1, 1995, as amended; and (3) Texas Health and Safety Code Annotated § 361.078 (Vernon 1992), effective September 1, 1989.
D. What Changes Are We Authorizing With Today's Action?
The State of Texas applied for final approval of its revision to its complete program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. Texas' revisions consist of regulations which specifically govern Federal Hazardous Waste promulgated from July 1, 1995, to June 30, 1996 (RCRA Cluster VI). Texas requirements are included in a chart with this document. The EPA is now making an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Texas' Hazardous Waste Program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we grant Texas final authorization for the following program revisions:
|Federal citation||State analog|
|1. Liquids in Landfills III, [60 FR 35703-35706] July 11, 1995. (Checklist 145)||Texas Water Code Annotated (TWCA) § 5.103 (Vernon 1988 & Supplement (Supp.) and Supp. 1999), effective September 1, 1995, as amended; § 5.105 (Vernon 1988) effective September 1, 1985; Texas Health and Safety Code Annotated (THSCA) § 361.017 (Vernon 1992 & Supp. 1998 & Supp. 1999), effective September 1, 1995, as amended, THSCA § 361.024 (Vernon 1992 & Supp. 1999), effective September 1, 1995, as amended, 30 TAC §§ 335.125(e) and 335.175(e), effective November 20, 1996, as amended. The State law is more stringent than Federal law. Since 1985, TNRCC rules have not allowed the option of using sorbent to treat free liquids to be disposed of in landfills. Therefore the federal regulations in Checklist 145 concerning the nonbiodegradability of sorbent to be used to treat free liquids to be disposed in landfills have no applicability under state rules.|
|Start Printed Page 43248|
|2. RCRA Expanded Public Participation [60 FR 63417-63434] December 11, 1995. (Checklist 148)||TWCA 5.103 (Vernon 1988 & Supp. 1999), effective September 1, 1995, as amended; TWCA 5.105 (Vernon 1988) effective September 1, 1985, TWCA 5.501 (Vernon Supp. 1999), effective September 1, 1997, as amended; 26.011 (Vernon 1988 & Supp. 1999), effective March 28, 1991, as amended; THSCA §§ 361.017 (Vernon 1992 & Supp. 1999), effective September 1, 1995, as amended; THSCA 361.024 (Vernon 1992 & Supp. 1999), effective September 1, 1995, as amended; 30 TAC § 39.103, effective August 8, 1999, as amended; 30 TAC § 305.2 effective August 8, 1999 as amended; 30 TAC § 305.30, TAC § 35.402(e) effective December 10, 1998; 30 TAC § 305.50 (4)(A), effective November 20, 1996 as amended, TAC § 305.125, TAC § 305.172, TAC § 305.174, TAC § 305.572, and TAC § 305.573 effective August 8, 1999 as amended.|
|§ 305.2, effective August 8, 1999, as amended; § 305.50, effective November 20, 1996, as amended; §§ 305.125, 305.172, 305.174, 305.572, and 305.573, effective August 8, 1999, as amended.|
|3. Amendments to the Definition of Solid Waste; Amendment II [61 FR 13103-13106] March 26, 1996. (Checklist 150)||TWCA 5.103 (Vernon 1988 & Supp. 1999), September effective 1, 1995, as amended; TWCA 5.105 (Vernon 1988) effective September 1, 1985, as amended; THSCA §§ 361.017 (Vernon 1992 & Supp. 1999), effective September 1, 1995, as amended; THSCA 361.024 (Vernon 1992 & Supp. 1999), effective September 1, 1995, as amended; 30 TAC § 335.1(119), effective April 4, 1999, as amended.|
|4. Land Disposal Restrictions Phase III—Decharacterized Wastewater, Carbamate Waste, and Spent Potliners [61 FR 15566-15660] April 8, 1996. (Checklist 151)||TWCA 5.103 (Vernon 1988 & Supp. 1999), effective September 1, 1995, as amended; TWCA 5.105 (Vernon 1988) effective September 1, 1985, as amended; THSCA §§ 361.017 (Vernon 1992 & Supp. 1999), effective September 1, 1995, as amended; THSCA 361.024 (Vernon 1992 & Supp. 1999), effective September 1, 1995, as amended; 30 TAC § 335.431, effective April 4, 1999, as amended. State law is more stringent than Federal law. State law has no provision equivalent to 40 CFR part 268.44(a), under which EPA may issue a variance from an applicable treatment standard.|
E. What Decisions Have We Made?
We conclude that Texas' application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Texas final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Texas has responsible for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities 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 Texas, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
F. How Do the Revised State Rules Differ From the Federal Rules?
The EPA considers the following State requirement to be more stringent than the Federal: The State § 335.175(e) and 335.125(e) analogous to 40 CFR 264.314(e)(2)(ii), 40 CFR 264.314(e)(2)(iii), 40 CFR 265.314(f)(2)(ii) and 40 CFR 265.314(f)(2)(iii), since 1985, the TNRCC rules have not allowed the option of using sorbent to treat free liquids to be disposed of in landfills. Therefore, the Federal regulations in Checklist 145 (Liquids in Landfills III) concerning the nonbiodegradability of sorbent to be used to treat free liquids to be disposed in landfills have no applicability under State rules. Texas does not have provision equivalent to 40 CFR 268.44(a), under which EPA may issue variance from an applicable treatment standard. In this authorization of the State of Texas' program revisions for RCRA Cluster VI, there are no broader in scope provisions. Broader in scope requirements are not part of the authorized program and EPA cannot enforce them.
G. Who Handles Permits After This Authorization Takes Effect?
The State will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization. Upon authorization of the State program, EPA will suspend issuance of Federal permits for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for which the State is receiving authorization. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Texas is not yet authorized.
H. Why Wasn't There A Proposed Rule Before Today's Notice?
The EPA is authorizing the State's changes through this immediate final action and is publishing this rule without a prior proposal to authorize the changes because EPA believes it is not controversial and does not expect comments that oppose this action. The EPA is providing an opportunity for public comment in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, where we are publishing a separate document that proposes to authorize the State changes. If EPA receives comments which oppose this authorization, that document will serve as a proposal to authorize the changes.
I. Where Do I Send My Comments And When Are They Due?
You should send written comments to Alima Patterson, Regional Authorization Coordinator, Grants and Authorization Section (6PD-G), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, Start Printed Page 432491445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-8533. Please refer to Docket Number TX-00-1. We must receive your comments by August 14, 2000. You may not have an opportunity to comment again. If you want to comment on this action. You must do so at this time.
J. What Happens If EPA Receives Comments Opposing This Action?
If EPA receives comments which oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register before the rule becomes effective. The EPA will base any further decision on the authorization of the State program changes on the proposal mentioned in the previous paragraph. We will then address all public 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.
K. When Will This Approval Take Effect?
Unless EPA receives comments that oppose this action, this final authorization approval will become effective without further notice on September 11, 2000.
L. Where Can I Review The State's Applications?
You can view and copy the State of Texas' application from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following addresses: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 3 S Circle, Austin TX 78753-3087, (512) 239-1121 and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-6444. For further information contact Alima Patterson, Regional Authorization Coordinator, Grants and Authorization Section (6PD-G), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, (214) 665-8533.
M. How Does Today's Action Affect Indian Country In Texas?
Texas is not authorized to carry out its Hazardous Waste Program in Indian country within the State. This authority remains with EPA. Therefore, this action has no effect in Indian country.
N. What Is Codification?
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized Hazardous Waste Program into the CFR. The EPA does this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. The EPA reserves the amendment of 40 CFR Part 272, subpart SS for this codification of Texas' program changes until a later date.
Compliance with Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this rule from the requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12866.
Compliance Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” applies to any rule that: (1) the OMB determines is “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that the 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.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, § 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the 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 the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) Public Law (P.L.) 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, the EPA must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures to State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the 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 objective 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 the 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 of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that sections 202 and 205 requirements do not apply to today's action because this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local and/or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private sector. Costs to State, local and/or tribal governments already exist under the State of Texas' program, and today's action does not impose any additional obligations on regulated entities. In fact EPA's approval of State programs generally may reduce, not increase, compliance costs for the private sector. Further, as it applies to the State, this action does not impose a Federal intergovernmental mandate because UMRA does not include duties arising from participation in a voluntary federal program.
The requirements of section 203 of UMRA also do not apply to today's action because this rule contains no Start Printed Page 43250regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Although small governments may be hazardous waste generators, transporters, or own and/or operate of Treatment, Storage, Disposal, Facilities, they are already subject to the regulatory requirements under the existing State laws that are being authorized by EPA, and thus, are not subject to any additional significant or unique requirements by virtue of this program approval.
Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 USC 601 et seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organization, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's action on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as specified in the Small Business Administration regulations; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this action on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action does not impose any new requirements on small entities because small entities that are hazardous waste generators, transporters, or that own and/or operate treatment, storage, disposal, facilities are already subject to the regulatory requirements under the State laws which EPA is now authorizing. This action merely authorizes for the purpose of RCRA 3006 those existing State requirements.
Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 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. The EPA submitted 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 today's Federal Register. This rule is not a “major rule” defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal agencies must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information request contained in a proposed rule or a final rule. This rule will not impose any information requirements upon the regulated community.
Executive Order 13084 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not require 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 cost incurred by the tribal governments. If EPA complies with consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to 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.”
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13084 because it does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian governments. The State of Texas is not authorized to implement the RCRA hazardous waste program in Indian country. This action has no effect on the hazardous waste program that EPA implements in the Indian country within the State.
Executive Order 13132 Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) 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 section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that impose 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. The 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 action does not have federalism implication. It will not have a substantial direct effect on 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 affects only one State. This action simply approves Texas' proposal to be authorized for updated requirements of the hazardous waste program that the State has voluntarily chosen to operate. Further, as a result of this action, those newly authorized provisions of the State's program now apply in the State of Texas in lieu of the equivalent Federal program provisions implemented by EPA under HSWA. Affected parties are subject only to those authorized State provisions, as a opposed to being subject to both Federal and State regulatory requirements. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
- Environmental protection
- Administrative practice and procedure
- Confidential business information
- Hazardous materials transportation
- Hazardous waste
- Indian lands
- Intergovernmental relations
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Water pollution control
- Water supply
Dated: June 14, 2000.
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-17488 Filed 7-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P