[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49617-49621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19226]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-7252-4]


Michigan: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management 
Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is granting Michigan final authorization of revisions 
to its hazardous waste management program under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA published a proposed rule on 
February 28, 2002 at 67 FR 9225 and provided for public comment. The 
public comment period ended on April 15, 2002. We received comments 
from two commenters, addressed below. No further opportunity for 
comment will be provided. EPA has determined that Michigan's revisions 
satisfy all requirements for final authorization.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Final authorization for the revisions to Michigan's 
hazardous

[[Page 49618]]

waste management program will become effective on July 31, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Judy Feigler, Michigan Regulatory 
Specialist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Waste, Pesticides and 
Toxics Division (DM-7J), 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604, 
phone number: (312) 886-4179; or Ms. Kimberly Tyson, Michigan 
Department of Environmental Quality, 608 W. Allegan, Hannah Building, 
Lansing, Michigan, phone number: (517) 373-2487.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA 
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste 
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent 
than the federal program. As the federal program changes, states must 
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 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 
260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

B. What Were the Comments and Responses to EPA's Proposal?

    On February 28, 2002 (67 FR 9225), EPA published a proposed rule 
announcing the availability for public comment of Michigan's 
application for revisions to its authorized hazardous waste management 
program. EPA also announced that it had reviewed the application and 
determined that these revisions satisfy all requirements needed to 
qualify for final authorization. EPA received written comments from two 
commenters during the public comment period. The significant issues 
raised by the commenters and EPA's responses are summarized below.

I. Comments From the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

    Comment #1: The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 
submitted a comment objecting to EPA's determination that Michigan is 
not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian 
country within the state, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. MDEQ notes that 
the original application for the RCRA base program included a statement 
from Michigan's Office of Attorney General that the Michigan ``does 
not, at this time, seek any federal authorization over ``Indian lands'' 
within Michigan.'' MDEQ does not agree that the term ``Indian country'' 
means the same as ``Indian lands.'' It interprets the term ``Indian 
lands'' to mean either land held in trust by the federal government for 
the benefit of a federally recognized Indian tribe or Indian-owned 
lands within Indian reservations.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the interpretation that there is a 
difference between the terms ``Indian lands'' and ``Indian country'' 
for purposes of implementing EPA programs. In the context of RCRA, 
EPA's interpretation that the two terms are synonymous has been 
specifically approved by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 
Washington Dep't of Ecology v. U.S. EPA, 752 F.2d 1465, 1467, n.1 
(9\th\ Cir.1985). The Court stated:

    In the course of this litigation, EPA has regarded [the term 
``Indian lands''] as synonymous with ``Indian country,'' which is 
defined at 18 U.S.C.1151 to include all lands (including fee lands) 
within Indian reservations, dependent Indian communities and Indian 
allotments to which Indians hold title. We accept this definition as 
a reasonable marker of the geographic boundary between state and 
federal authority.

EPA has consistently interpreted ``Indian country'' to be the same as 
``Indian lands.'' For example, EPA's regulations implementing RCRA 
Subtitle D define ``Indian lands'' to be the same as ``Indian 
country.'' 40 CFR 258.2. See also 40 CFR 144.3 (regulations under the 
Safe Drinking Water Act define ``Indian lands'' to be the same as 
``Indian country''). In addition, it is clear that EPA has used the 
terms ``Indian country'' and ``Indian lands'' interchangeably when 
addressing authorization of state programs under RCRA Subtitle C. For 
some examples of this practice, see 65 FR 46606, 610 (July 31, 2000) 
(Virginia); 65 FR 33774, 776 (May 25, 2000) (Minnesota); 65 FR 29973, 
978 (May 10, 2000) (West Virginia); 65 FR 26755 (May 9, 2000) (South 
Dakota); 64 FR 49673, 674, 680 (September 14, 1999) (Texas); 58 FR 8232 
(Feb. 12, 1993) (Utah); 51 FR 3782 (January 30, 1986) (Washington).
    Outside of the environmental context, the term ``Indian lands'' has 
frequently been used to refer to more than lands held in trust or 
Indian-owned land. For example, Congress has defined ``Indian lands'' 
to include ``Indian country'' in the Indian Tribal Regulatory Reform 
and Business Development Act of 2000 (25 U.S.C. 4302(4)) and in the 
Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (25 
U.S.C. 3653(2), and it defined ``Indian lands'' to include all lands 
within the limits of any Indian reservation in the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703(4). Other agencies have adopted similar 
definitions of the term Indian lands. See 30 CFR 700.5 (adopted by the 
Department of Interior under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
Act, ``Indian lands'' includes all lands within the exterior boundaries 
of any federal Indian Reservation) and 25 CFR 502.12 (adopted by the 
Indian Gaming Commission under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 
``Indian lands'' include ``land within the limits of an Indian 
Reservation'').
    Comment #2: MDEQ also stated that EPA, relying upon its position on 
``Indian lands,'' has asserted that the state lacks implementing 
authority over non-Indian facilities on non-Indian lands. In some 
cases, these assertions have even encompassed facilities over which the 
EPA has explicitly delegated authority to the state.
    Response: EPA takes the position that an EPA-approved state program 
does not apply in Indian country (including any non-Indian facilities 
in Indian country) unless the state has expressly demonstrated 
authority and EPA has expressly approved the state to administer the 
EPA program there. EPA has not expressly authorized the State of 
Michigan under the federal environmental laws in Indian country.
    Comment #3: MDEQ comments that EPA's interpretation of what lands 
constitute a reservation appears to be typically based solely on claims 
of tribes, even where those claims are clearly contrary to applicable 
laws and treaties, as well as all available historical evidence, and 
have never been established in a court of law.
    Response: Under RCRA, EPA determines which lands constitute a 
reservation (and hence are within Indian country) on a case-by-case 
basis. EPA does not rely solely on the claims of tribes in making this 
determination. EPA generally consults with the Department of Interior 
in making this determination and takes into account all applicable 
information, including treaties and other laws.
    Comment #4: MDEQ commented that the term ``Indian country'' appears 
in a criminal statute which predates RCRA. MDEQ also commented that 
EPA's interpretation diminishes the scope of Michigan's base RCRA 
program.
    Response: The use of the term ``Indian country'' rather than the 
term ``Indian lands'' would not diminish Michigan's base program, since 
EPA treats those two terms as synonymous. The statutory

[[Page 49619]]

definition of ``Indian country'' in 18 U.S.C. 1151, includes, inter 
alia, all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation, including 
non-member fee lands. EPA notes that, although the definition of Indian 
country appears in a criminal code, it generally applies to civil 
judicial and regulatory jurisdiction. Alaska v. Native Village of 
Venetie Tribal Gov't, 522 U.S. 520, 527 (1998); Decoteau v. District 
County Court, 420 U.S. 425, 427 n.2 (1975). EPA also notes that its 
interpretation of the two terms has been held consistently even before 
Michigan received authorization for the base RCRA program in October of 
1986. See Washington Dep't of Ecology v. U.S. EPA, 752 F. 2d 1465, 
1467, n.1 (9th Cir. 1985).

II. Comments From a Second Commenter

    Comment #5: The commenter asserts that EPA should have hosted a 
public hearing.
    Response: Michigan received final authorization for its RCRA 
program on October 30, 1986, and is applying for a revision to its 
authorized program to reflect analogous modifications to the federal 
RCRA Subtitle C program. The regulations governing review of program 
revisions at 40 CFR part 271 do not require a hearing for authorization 
of revisions. On March 4, 1986, EPA promulgated amendments to 40 CFR 
271.21 that eliminated public hearing requirements for revisions. The 
Agency discussed this elimination in the preamble to that rule:

    As discussed in the proposal, the new procedures do not require 
public hearings to be held in conjunction with EPA's authorization 
decisions. Since there is no legal requirement to provide for 
hearings on revision decisions and little public interest has been 
shown to date in attending hearings on initial authorization of 
state programs, we think the opportunity to provide written comments 
is adequate. Only one comment was received on the elimination of 
routine public hearings, and that comment favored the rule change. * 
* *

51 FR 7540 at 7541 (March 4, 1986).
    Comment #6: The commenter asserts that Michigan's statutes in 
Public Act 451 Part 111 and 115 do not appear to provide authority for 
the land application of hazardous waste found in R 299.9801, Mich. Adm. 
Code.
    Response: R 299.9801, Mich. Adm. Code, was adopted by the State of 
Michigan effective on December 28, 1985. The Attorney General of the 
State of Michigan submitted a statement, signed September 7, 1988, that 
certified that ``the laws of the State of Michigan provide adequate 
authority to carry out the revised program set forth in the revised 
``Program Description'' submitted by the Michigan Department of Natural 
Resources.'' (The agency was later renamed the Department of 
Environmental Quality.) Page 3 of that statement, paragraph II.A, 
reads, ``State statutes and regulations define hazardous waste and 
impose management standards so as to control all the hazardous waste 
controlled under 40 CFR 261, 264, 265 and 266 as amended August 20, 
1985 [50 FR 33541-43]* * *'' The statement further cites to the 
following statutory and regulatory authority, among others:
     1979 Act 64, section 4(3); MCL 299.504(3); MSA 13.30(4)(3) 
(currently 1994 Act 451, section 11103(3); MCL 324.11103(3); MSA 
13a.11103(3)).
     1979 Act 64, section 26; MCL 299.526; MSA 13.30(26) 
(currently 1994 Act 451, section 11127; MCL 324.11127; MSA 13a.11127)).
     Mich. Admin. Code 1985 AACS, R 299.9101 et seq.
    EPA reviewed the statement and the citations of authority and found 
them satisfactory, and authorization of the state program revisions 
became effective on April 24, 1989.
    Comment #7: The commenter asserts that R 299.9801, Mich. Adm. Code, 
allows for the unregulated disposal of hazardous waste as a fertilizer 
``product,'' whereas R 299.4111, Mich. Adm. Code, which pertains to 
plans to manage solid wastes as non-detrimental material managed for 
agricultural or silvicultural use, would heavily regulate non-hazardous 
waste.
    Response: For the reasons discussed below, this authorization 
action is not the appropriate forum for these comments. As in the 
federal regulations at 40 CFR 266.20, R 299.9801, Mich. Admin. Code, 
exempts products that contain ``recyclable materials used in a manner 
constituting disposal'' (except K061 derived fertilizers \1\) from 
regulation only if they comply with applicable land disposal 
restriction (LDR) treatment standards or, where no treatment standards 
have been established, if they comply with the applicable prohibition 
levels or with section 3004(d) of RCRA, for each recyclable material 
that the products contain. EPA promulgated 40 CFR 266.20 on January 4, 
1985 (see 50 FR 614) and revised this regulation on August 17, 1988 
(see 53 FR 31138); September 6, 1989 (54 FR 36967); and August 24, 1994 
(59 FR 8583). Michigan R 299.9801 is equivalent to the federal 
requirements and was previously authorized by EPA effective on October 
30, 1986 (51 FR 36804, October 16, 1986) and on April 8, 1996 (61 FR 
4742, February 2, 1996). The program revisions EPA is authorizing today 
do not affect the equivalency of R 299.9801.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA has proposed to remove the regulatory provision which 
currently exempts fertilizer made from K061 from having to meet 
applicable LDR standards in EPA's proposed rule ``Requirements for 
Zinc Fertilizers Made from Recycled Hazardous Secondary Materials,'' 
dated November 28, 2000. 65 FR 70985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, this comment is not relevant to this action because R 
299.4111, Mich. Adm.Code, is not part of and has no effect upon this 
action or Michigan's authorized hazardous waste program. R 299.4111, 
which regulates plans for managing solid wastes as non-detrimental 
material managed for agricultural or silvicultural use, is not 
applicable to hazardous wastes because R 299.4110 exempts hazardous 
wastes from regulation as solid waste. R 299.4110 reads as follows:

    As provided by section 11506 of the act, the following wastes 
are ``other wastes regulated by statute'' and are exempt from 
regulation as solid wastes under part 115 of the act: (a) hazardous 
waste regulated under part 111 of the act.

    By its terms, R 299.4111, Mich. Adm. Code, applies to solid wastes:

    (1) A person shall not apply sludges, ashes, or other solid 
waste to the land without having obtained a license under the act, 
unless the director has approved a plan for managing the wastes as 
nondetrimental materials that are appropriate for agricultural or 
silvicultural use or has otherwise authorized the application under 
part 31 of the act. (Emphasis added)

    While both solid waste and its subset hazardous waste are regulated 
under the umbrella of RCRA, that statute contains different subchapters 
for governing the content, criteria and administration of hazardous 
waste programs (Subchapter III) and solid waste plans (Subchapter IV). 
EPA's authority to ``authorize'' a state to administer and enforce a 
``hazardous waste program'' under Subchapter III of RCRA (see 3006 of 
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926) does not constitute ``approval'' of either a 
state solid waste plan (see section 4007(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6947(a), 
or a solid waste management facility permit program (see section 
4005(c) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6945(c)), under Subchapter IV of RCRA. The 
criteria for authorization of a state hazardous waste program are set 
part in section 3006 of RCRA. In reviewing an application under section 
3006, EPA considers whether the state program (1) is equivalent to the 
federal program under Subchapter III, which governs hazardous waste; 
(2) is consistent with federal or ``state programs applicable in other 
states''; and (3) provides adequate enforcement of compliance with the 
requirements of

[[Page 49620]]

Subchapter III of RCRA. As part of this review, EPA considers whether 
the state is imposing requirements less stringent than those authorized 
under Subchapter III respecting the same matter as governed by such 
regulation. (See sections 3006 and 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926 and 
6929.) The commenter's request for EPA to review R 299.9801 for 
consistency with R 299.4111, which explicitly does not apply to 
hazardous waste, falls outside the scope of this action.
    For the reasons set forth above, the comments on R 299.4111, Mich. 
Admin. Code, are not relevant to today's action.

C. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule?

    We conclude that Michigan's revisions to its authorized program 
meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by 
RCRA. Therefore, we are granting Michigan final authorization to 
operate its hazardous waste program with the revisions described in the 
authorization application. Michigan now 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 the states are authorized for 
the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and 
prohibitions in Michigan, including issuing permits, until the state is 
granted authorization to do so.

D. What Is the Effect of Today's Authorization Decision?

    The effect of this decision is that a facility in Michigan subject 
to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized state requirements 
in lieu of the corresponding federal requirements in order to comply 
with RCRA. Additionally, such persons will now have to comply with any 
applicable federally-issued requirements, such as HSWA regulations 
issued by EPA for which the state has not received authorization, and 
RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized state-issued 
requirements. Michigan continues to have enforcement responsibilities 
under its state hazardous waste management program for violations of 
its hazardous waste management program, but EPA retains its authority 
under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among 
others, the authority to:
     Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or 
reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; 
and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the state 
has taken its own actions.
    This action to approve these revisions does not impose additional 
requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for 
which Michigan is being authorized by today's action are already 
effective, and are not changed by today's action.

E. What Has Michigan Previously Been Authorized for?

    Michigan initially received final authorization on October 16, 
1986, effective October 30, 1986 (51 FR 36804-36805) to implement the 
RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for 
changes to Michigan's program effective January 23, 1990 (54 FR 48608, 
November 24, 1989); effective June 24, 1991 (56 FR 18517, January 24, 
1991); effective November 30, 1993 (58 FR 51244, October 1, 1993); 
effective January 13, 1995 (60 FR 3095, January 13, 1995); effective 
April 8, 1996 (61 FR 4742, February 8, 1996); effective November 14, 
1997 (62 FR 61775, November 14, 1997); and effective June 1, 1999 (64 
FR 10111, March 2, 1999).

F. What Changes Are We Authorizing With Today's Action?

    On March 3, 2000, and April 3, 2001, Michigan submitted complete 
program revision applications seeking authorization of its changes in 
accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make a final decision that 
Michigan's hazardous waste management program, as revised, satisfies 
all requirements under RCRA necessary to qualify for final 
authorization. Therefore, we grant Michigan final authorization for the 
program revisions described in the February 28, 2002 proposed rule (67 
FR 9225). For further details, see the February 28, 2002 proposed rule.

G. Who Handles Permits After the Authorization Takes Effect?

    Michigan 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 for which 
Michigan is authorized after the effective date of this authorization. 
EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements 
for which Michigan is not yet authorized.

H. What Is Codification and Is EPA Codifying Michigan's Hazardous Waste 
Program as Authorized in This Rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the state's statutes and 
regulations that comprise the state's authorized hazardous waste 
program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing 
the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment 
of 40 CFR part 272, subpart X, for this authorization of Michigan's 
program changes until a later date.

I. How Does Today's Action Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in 
Michigan?

    Michigan is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program 
in Indian country within the state, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This 
includes:
    1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations 
within or abutting the State of Michigan;
    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, today's action has no effect on Indian country. EPA will 
continue to implement and administer the RCRA program in Indian 
country. It is EPA's long-standing position that the term ``Indian 
lands'' used in past Michigan hazardous waste approvals is synonymous 
with the term ``Indian country.'' Washington Dep't of Ecology v. U.S. 
EPA, 752 F.2d 1465, 1467, n.1 (9th Cir. 1985). See 40 CFR 144.3 and 
258.2.

J. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted RCRA 
authorizations from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to 
review by OMB. Furthermore, this action is not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) 
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866. This action authorizes state requirements for the purpose of 
RCRA section 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. This authorization will effectively suspend

[[Page 49621]]

the applicability of certain federal regulations in favor of Michigan's 
program, thereby eliminating duplicate requirements for handlers of 
hazardous waste in the state. Authorization will not impose any new 
burdens on small entities. Accordingly, I certify that this action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
Because this action authorizes 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 (Public Law 104-4). This action 
does not have tribal implications within the meaning of Executive Order 
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 
because it merely authorizes state requirements as part of the state 
RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This 
action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not 
make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This 
action does not include environmental justice related issues that 
require consideration under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 
16, 1994).
    Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a state's application for 
authorization as long as the state meets the criteria required by RCRA. 
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it 
reviews a state authorization application, to require the use of any 
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard 
that otherwise satisfies the 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. 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 15, 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. 
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1994 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.).
    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. EPA has submitted a report containing this document 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 this 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste 
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 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).

    Dated: July 23, 2002.
Thomas V. Skinner,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 02-19226 Filed 7-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P