Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Ohio has applied to EPA for final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed Ohio's application with regards to Federal requirements, and is proposing to authorize the State's changes.
Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before October 14, 2011.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–RCRA–2011–0530 by one of the following methods:
Gary Westefer, Ohio Regulatory Specialist, U.S. EPA Region 5, LR–8J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–7450, e-mail
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 request 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.
We conclude that Ohio's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant 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.
The effect of this decision, once finalized, is that a facility in Ohio subject to RCRA would 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 RCRA violations, 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 will not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Ohio is being authorized are already effective, and will not be changed by EPA's final action.
If EPA receives adverse comments on this authorization, we will address all public comments in a later
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); January 20, 2006, effective January 20, 2006 (71 FR 3220), and October 29, 2007, effective October 29, 2007 (72 FR 61063).
On May 9, 2011, Ohio submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We are now proposing to authorize, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, Ohio's hazardous waste program revision. We propose to grant Ohio final authorization for the following program changes:
Ohio has excluded the non-delegable Federal requirements at 40 CFR 268.5, 268.6, 268.42(b), 268.44, and 270.3. EPA will continue to implement those requirements. In this action, because Ohio has not received statutory authority for Subparts AA, BB and CC of 40 CFR part 264, they have not adopted the rules for the 40 CFR subpart BB portion in checklist 212 (located in the table above). This will be added at a later date. Checklist 214 in the above table appeared in the
Ohio will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. 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 until they expire or are terminated. 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. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Ohio is not yet authorized.
Ohio is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in “Indian Country,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian Country includes:
1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian Reservations within or abutting the State of Ohio;
2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and
3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation that qualifies as Indian Country.
Therefore, EPA retains the authority to implement and administer the RCRA program in Indian Country.
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. Ohio's rules, up to and including those revised June 7, 1991, as corrected August 19, 1991, have previously been codified through the incorporation-by-reference effective February 4, 1992 (57 FR 4162) . We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart KK for the codification of Ohio's program changes until a later date.
This proposed rule only authorizes hazardous waste requirements pursuant to RCRA 3006 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by State law (see
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from its review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821 January 21, 2011).
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those required by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Because this rule approves pre-existing 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 of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) does not apply to this rule because it will not have federalism implications (
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) does not apply to this rule because it will not have tribal implications (
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the EPA does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866.
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 requirements of RCRA. 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 to this rule.
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this 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.
EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 18, 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.
Because this rule proposes authorization of 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 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other information required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Indians—lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action 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).