[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 135 (Thursday, July 13, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43246-43251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17488]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL-6730-8]
Texas: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Immediate final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: 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.
DATES: 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.
ADDRESSES: 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson (214) 665-8533.
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 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
[[Page 43247]]
authorized 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) Sec. 3.8(a)(30) and at 30 TAC
Sec. 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
Sec. 311.027 and adoption of the hazardous waste rules in general are
pursuant to the following statutory provisions: (1) Texas Water Code
Annotated Sec. 5.103 (Vernon 1988 & Supplement 1998 and Supp. 1999),
effective September 1995, as amended; (2) Texas Health and Safety Code
Annotated Sec. 361.024 (Vernon 1992 & supplement 1998 & 1999),
effective September 1, 1995, as amended; and (3) Texas Health and
Safety Code Annotated Sec. 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 Texas Water Code Annotated
35703-35706] July 11, 1995. (Checklist (TWCA) Sec. 5.103 (Vernon
145). 1988 & Supplement (Supp.) and
Supp. 1999), effective
September 1, 1995, as amended;
Sec. 5.105 (Vernon 1988)
effective September 1, 1985;
Texas Health and Safety Code
Annotated (THSCA) Sec.
361.017 (Vernon 1992 & Supp.
1998 & Supp. 1999), effective
September 1, 1995, as amended,
THSCA Sec. 361.024 (Vernon
1992 & Supp. 1999), effective
September 1, 1995, as amended,
30 TAC Secs. 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.
[[Page 43248]]
2. RCRA Expanded Public Participation TWCA 5.103 (Vernon 1988 & Supp.
[60 FR 63417-63434] December 11, 1995. 1999), effective September 1,
(Checklist 148). 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 Secs.
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 Sec.
39.103, effective August 8,
1999, as amended; 30 TAC Sec.
305.2 effective August 8, 1999
as amended; 30 TAC Sec.
305.30, TAC Sec. 35.402(e)
effective December 10, 1998;
30 TAC Sec. 305.50 (4)(A),
effective November 20, 1996 as
amended, TAC Sec. 305.125,
TAC Sec. 305.172, TAC Sec.
305.174, TAC Sec. 305.572,
and TAC Sec. 305.573
effective August 8, 1999 as
amended.
Sec. 305.2, effective August
8, 1999, as amended; Sec.
305.50, effective November 20,
1996, as amended; Secs.
305.125, 305.172, 305.174,
305.572, and 305.573,
effective August 8, 1999, as
amended.
3. Amendments to the Definition of TWCA 5.103 (Vernon 1988 & Supp.
Solid Waste; Amendment II [61 FR 13103- 1999), September effective 1,
13106] March 26, 1996. (Checklist 150). 1995, as amended; TWCA 5.105
(Vernon 1988) effective
September 1, 1985, as amended;
THSCA Secs. 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 Sec. 335.1(119),
effective April 4, 1999, as
amended.
4. Land Disposal Restrictions Phase TWCA 5.103 (Vernon 1988 & Supp.
III--Decharacterized Wastewater, 1999), effective September 1,
Carbamate Waste, and Spent Potliners 1995, as amended; TWCA 5.105
[61 FR 15566-15660] April 8, 1996. (Vernon 1988) effective
(Checklist 151). September 1, 1985, as amended;
THSCA Secs. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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,
[[Page 43249]]
1445 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.
Regulatory Requirements
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, Sec. 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
[[Page 43250]]
regulatory 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.
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, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control,
Water supply.
[[Page 43251]]
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: June 14, 2000.
Jerry Clifford,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-17488 Filed 7-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P