&EPA
*
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-420) WF
EPA 500-B-92-005
OSWER Directive 9650.12
May 1992
Suggested Procedures
For Review Of
State UST Applications
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DfRECTIVE NUMBER. 9650.12
TITLE: Suggested Procedures for Review of
State UST Applications
APPROVAL DATE: May n, 1992
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 1992
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
$ FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
Office of Underground
Storage Tanks
REFERENCE (other documents):
OSWER Directive 9650.11 "State Program
Approval Handbook"
OSWER OSWER OSWER
'E DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
Washington, DC 20460
QSWER Directive Initiation Request
1. Directive Number
9650.12
3. Originator Information
Nama of Contact Parson
Jerry Parker
Mail Coda
OS-410(WF)
Office
OUST
Talaphona Coda
703-308-8884
3. Title
Suggested Procedures for Review of State UST Applications
4 Summary of Directive (include bnef statement of purpose)
Proposes a set of procedures for review of individual State UST
applications by U.S. EPA Regional offices
5. Keywords
underground storage tanks, State program approval
Sa. Does This Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s)?
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directfve(s)?
No _X Yes What directive (number, title) 9650.9
No
Yes What directive (number, title)
7. Draft Level
A - Signed by AA/DAA
B - Signed by Office Director
C - For Review & Comment
D - In Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
X
Yea
No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives-Coordinator^7«-•—y f)
Beverly Thomas, OUST'Directives' Coordinator
10. Name and Title of Approving Official
Date
ll±
David Ziegele, Director, OU
DitT
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. S-»7) Previous editions are obsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER 0
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
SUGGESTED PROCEDURES
FOR REVIEW OF
STATE UST APPLICATIONS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
May 1992
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OUST would like to thank those individuals who helped make these
revisions to the original, March 1989 version of Suggested Procedures for
Review of State UST Applications. Since the initial publication of this
manual, a number of Regional offices have reviewed State Program Approval
applications submitted by their States. Their successes, but perhaps more
importantly, the difficulties they encountered, have taught us much about the
State Program Approval process. With the help of Regional and State UST
program staff, as well as representatives of the Office of General Counsel,
Offices of Regional Counsel, and the Office of Enforcement, we have been able
to produce what we feel is a useful, accurate, and up-to-date document which
draws on more than two years of Regional experience in proceeding with State
Program Approval. OUST feels that the lessons that have been learned over the
past two years are reflected in the current document and should lead to a
greater number of States seeking and achieving program approval in the near
future.
11
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
The policies and procedures set out in this document are intended solely
for the guidance of Government personnel. They are not intended, nor can they
be relied upon, to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable
by any party in litigation with the United States. The Agency reserves the
right to act at variance with these policies and procedures and to change them
at any time without public notice.
iii
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. OVERVIEW AND APPROACH 1
List of Minimum Steps Required to Complete State Program
Approval Process 2
Pre-Application Phase 2
Diagnostic Checklist for State Program Approval 4
State Program Approval Pre-Application Checklist 15
III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 16
Regional Review Team Members 18
State Applicant 20
Headquarters Offices 20
IV. REVIEW PROCESS 22
Phase 1: Acceptance of Application 22
Phase 2: Substantive Review and Tentative Determination 24
Phase 3: Review of Public Comments and Final Determination 25
V. SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS 26
Streamlined Program Approval Schedule 27
Extended Program Approval Schedule 28
VI. CODIFICATION OF APPROVED STATE PROGRAMS 30
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS FOR STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL DECISIONS 31
Purpose of the Record 31
Content of the Record 31
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A STATUTORY CHECKLIST A-l
APPENDIX B GUIDANCE ON PREPARING FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES B-l
APPENDIX C APPROVAL DETERMINATIONS
Tentative Determination To Approve C-l
Final Determination To Approve C-4
APPENDIX D CODIFICATION OF APPROVED STATE PROGRAMS
Proposed/Final Codification Notice D-l
Immediate Final Codification Notice D-7
CFR Reference for Codification of State UST Programs D-13
APPENDIX E CHECKLIST FOR COMPLETE STATE APPLICATIONS E-l
iv
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
I. INTRODUCTION
This document proposes a set of procedures for review of individual
State UST applications. The review processes are designed for both the
Regions and Headquarters offices, although the Regions have the prerogative to
adopt alternative procedures to suit individual Regional organizations. The
procedures that govern the participation of Headquarters offices and their
role in the State program approval process are intended to remain more rigid.
The document is organized to explain the general approach of the Office
of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) to State program approval; suggest the
roles and responsibilities of the Regions; describe the limited involvement of
certain Headquarters offices; suggest a schedule for ensuring that decisions
are made on State applications within 180 days, as required by Subtitle I of
RCRA; and provide information on codification of approved State programs and
administrative records for State program approval decisions.
II. OVERVIEW AND APPROACH
EPA has developed a State program approval process that will ensure that
existing and future State programs are approved to operate "in lieu of" the
Federal program with as little disruption and controversy as possible. As
stated in the final State program approval rule published in the Federal
Register on September 23, 1988, EPA's goal is to develop a flexible State
program approval process that will allow States to explore innovative
approaches in program development and implementation, while providing the
required level of stringency. A process that gives major responsibility for
UST program implementation to the individual States makes sense because the
most effective response to UST problems is provided through State or local
programs which are closer to the UST facilities than the Federal government.
However, concepts, guidance, and training for program implementation are
developed by Headquarters and the Regions. The Regions then use these tools
to assist individual States in developing approvable UST programs and to
ensure that State programs fulfill the statutory requirements.
In the internal EPA process for State application approval, Headquarters
is responsible for establishing and maintaining national standards for program
consistency and quality. The Regions, who are most knowledgeable about the
quality and uniqueness of individual State programs, are responsible for
managing the review of applications, and for making the tentative and final
decisions to approve State programs. Such decision-making authority was
delegated to the Regional Administrators on March 6, 1986, with OUST retaining
a limited consultation role. This document suggests some procedures the
Regions might use in carrying out this important activity.
The UST State program approval process described here is designed to
streamline the formal decision-making process so that States meeting the
standard established by EPA will be approved in the shortest possible period
of time. The approval process is also designed to maximize interaction
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
between the Region and State. This interactive process should result in
faster removal of obstacles to approval because the Region is able to discuss
approval issues and public comments with the State early in the process. The
process also allows the State Agency Director an opportunity to effectively
defend the program, as necessary, before the Regional Administrator.
The following is a list of the steps that EPA is legally obligated to
undertake with regard to the review and approval of State UST programs upon
State submittal of an application to the Region:
1) Regional Review Team (RRT) Determines if Application is Complete and
Reviews Application
2) Regional Administrator Makes Decision
3) Region publishes Federal Register Notice of Tentative Approval
4) Public Comment Period and Public Hearing (if held) Occur
5) Region Publishes Final Program Approval Notice
The State Program Approval Handbook provides guidance to States on how
to prepare applications for program approval. This manual will focus on how
the Regions might accomplish the steps listed above.
Pre-Application Phase. One of the most important aspects of the State
Program Approval process occurs long before the State submits its final State
Program Approval application to the Region for review. This pre-application
phase is the time during which the State UST program takes shape through
active and frequent interaction among the State, the Region, including the
Regional UST Attorney, and EPA Headquarters. While this document focuses
mainly on ways of approaching completed State Program Approval applications,
the pre-application phase is crucial to ensuring that States develop the
necessary authorities, capabilities, and procedures required to operate the
State program in lieu of the Federal program.
Regions have the lead responsibility for State Program Approval. They
should work closely with their States, keeping involvement close and congenial
and making comments throughout the process, not just at the end. One
important Regional program staff duty is to promote and facilitate the concept
of State Program Approval to States. Points to stress include the greater
credibility that goes along with program approval, the avoidance of dual
Federal and State regulation of USTs, and program implementation closest to
the source of the problem, which should increase the effectiveness of the
program. The Region should work with the State early to build a strong
program that will be in a good position to gain approval, providing technical
assistance when necessary and responding quickly, thoroughly, and accurately
to State questions or requests. The Regional program staff should review the
State Program Approval application as it is being developed in order to
facilitate the review of it by the Regional UST Attorneys. This will help
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
ensure that the program is approvable even before an official application is
submitted. Waiting for the State to provide a formal submittal can result in
unnecessary delays in the review process.
There are two discrete phases of the State Program Approval application
review process: the pre-application review and the actual (180-day) review.
The State legislative and regulatory work that must precede submission of an
acceptable State Program Approval application requires a very long time frame,
especially in States where legislative sessions may occur as infrequently as
every other year. Not establishing the necessary legal authorities and
program structures can greatly delay the entire State Program Approval
process. This phase of the process is also an excellent opportunity for
States and EPA to establish the close working relationship necessary to ensure
successful approval and subsequent development and improvement of State
programs.
Regional staff who have worked on State Program Approval applications to
date indicate that one of the most important actions a State can take early in
this process is to submit complete copies of its statutes and regulations,
even if no other application components are near completion. Because revising
statutes and regulations can be one ,of the most time-consuming aspects of
compiling a State Program Approval application, it is important to complete
and submit them for review first, so that if changes are needed, they can be
made while other components of the application are being assembled. States
that wait until they have a complete application before submitting statutes
and regulations for review are taking a great risk; review of those materials
may reveal deficiencies that require time-consuming legislative changes that
will significantly delay the approval of the State program. There is nothing
wrong with submitting an application for review piece-by-piece, especially if
the first pieces are the relevant statutes and regulations. An analysis of
the State statutes and regulations by a State attorney should be submitted to
the Region along with the statutes and regulations, to avoid having EPA do the
initial comparison to the State Program Approval requirements. Appendix A
contains a "Statutory Checklist" that can be used in reviewing early drafts of
State statutes to ensure that they provide sufficient authority to develop
regulations that will provide for a "no less stringent" State UST program.
One tool that could be of great potential value to Regions in the pre-
application phase is Exhibit 1, a "Diagnostic Checklist for State Program
Approval," developed through interviews with Regional staff who have worked on
State Program Approval applications with their States. The checklist lists
each of the required components of a State Program Approval application, the
most commonly encountered barriers to producing them, and several assistance
options that Regions can provide to overcome those barriers. By using this
checklist, Regions can identify where impediments are encountered by States
and determine ways to most efficiently correct them. This should result in a
more streamlined application process, thus expediting program approval.
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
EXHIBIT l! DIAGNOSTIC CHECKLIST FOR STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL
The following checklist may be used by Regions assisting their States in
the development of State program approval applications. Regional staff can
ask State program officials the questions listed below relating to the various
components of the application. The boxes below each question identify
specific barriers that may prevent the State from obtaining sufficient
authorities or developing complete application components. The checklists
also outline suggested assistance measures to overcome the identified
barriers.
For example, consider the first question, "Does the State have the
statutory authority to develop and implement a no less stringent UST program?"
The first barrier identified is lack of authority. If the State or Region
considers State statutory authority to be inadequate, they would study the
assistance measures to determine which would enable the State to obtain
sufficient authority. The second barrier identified is lack of interaction
with the State Attorney General's Office. If this is also a barrier for the
State, the State and Region would again consult the assistance measures to
find solutions. Only when all barriers to a given State Program Approval
component are determined not to apply to a State should the analysis proceed
to the next question on the checklist. The barriers identified in remaining
sections of the checklist should be approached in a similar fashion.
This checklist should be viewed as a starting point from which Regions
can begin to assess and improve the State program approval status of their
States. Even in cases where a particular barrier does not pose a problem for
the State, the assistance measures should be reviewed, because they could
contribute to improvements in the State program.
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
1) Does the State have the statutory authority to develop and implement
a no less stringent UST program?
BARRIER: Lack of authority
ASSISTANCE:
D Review existing State authority and provide comments on where authority is
lacking.
D Review and comment on draft language for statutory amendments.
D Offer to speak to legislators, testify at hearings, or otherwise support amendments
to grant or enhance necessary State authorities.
BARRIER: Lack of interaction with State Attorney General's Office
ASSISTANCE:
D Offer to meet with Attorney General to encourage greater involvement in UST
"- program.
D Bring Attorney General's Office into the team structure at the beginning of the
process.
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
2) Does the State have regulations that meet the "no less stringent"
criteria?
BARRIER: Regulations do not meet "no less stringent" criteria
ASSISTANCE:
D Review existing regulations using SPA objectives and provide comments on how
deficient items could be amended to meet no less stringent requirements.
D Review and comment on draft amendments.
BARRIER: Inadequate State resources to develop UST regulations
ASSISTANCE:
D Reaffirm that States may adopt the Federal regulations by reference, which
requires considerably less time and money than developing their own.
D Inject Federal resources into State programs, conditioned on completion of an
approvable final SPA application by a specified date.
D Encourage and/or provide greater contractor assistance.
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
2) (continued)
BARRIER: Lack of interaction with State Attorney General's Office
ASSISTANCE:
D Offer to meet with Attorney General to encourage greater involvement in UST
program.
D Give a grant to Attorney General's Office to assure State attorney time.
D Encourage AG's Office to designate a particular staff attorney to work extensively
on UST program issues.
D Bring AG's Office into the team structure at the beginning of the process.
BARRIER: No financial responsibility regulations
ASSISTANCE:
D Emphasize that States do not need to have State funds to meet the financial
responsibility objective (some States may not develop regulations because they
believe they must have a fund in place).
D Help States develop financial responsibility regulations and State funds (if
desired), by improving understanding of financial responsibility issues, sharing
information from States that have approved regulations and/or funds, and
providing one-on-one or contractor assistance.
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
3) Has the State Attorney General developed his/her statement for
inclusion in the final State Program Approval application?
BARRIER: Inadequate State Attorney General preparation and
submittal
ASSISTANCE:
D Offer to meet with Attorney General to discuss the purpose of AG Statement
and stress its importance.
D Review draft and provide detailed comments on deficient items.
D Suggest that State complete a comparison of its regulations to the SPA objectives,
in order to facilitate Attorney General's review and "no less stringent"
determination.
D Bring AG's Office into the team structure at the beginning of the process.
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
4) Does the State have adequate enforcement procedures to implement
an effective UST program?
BARRIER: No procedures in place
ASSISTANCE:
D Suggest low-cost methods or approaches to implementation and enforcement
activities (i.e., those included in the capabilities matrices).
D Assist State in developing written enforcement procedures or review draft
description of enforcement procedures and provide detailed comments.
BARRIER: Inadequate State Attorney General preparation and
submittal
ASSISTANCE:
D Offer to meet with Attorney General to encourage greater involvement in the
UST program.
D Bring AG's Office into the team structure at the beginning of the process.
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
4) (continued)
BARRIER: Lack of interaction with Regional UST Attorney
ASSISTANCE:
D Offer to meet with Regional UST Attorney to encourage greater involvement in
the UST program.
D Bring Regional UST Attorney into the team structure at the beginning of the
process.
BARRIER: Inadequate State resources to develop procedures
ASSISTANCE:
D Testify to legislature on the importance of funding the UST program; elevate the
priority of the program.
D Inject Federal resources into State programs, conditioned on completion of an
approvable final SPA application by a specified date.
D Meet with Attorney General to encourage greater and earlier involvement in the
UST program.
10
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
4) (continued)
BARRIER: Inadequate Regional program review
ASSISTANCE:
D RPM should define priorities for Regional program staff.
BARRIER: Lack of enforcement authority
ASSISTANCE:
D Review existing procedures and provide comments on where authority is lacking.
D Suggest statutory amendments or review and comment on draft statutory
amendments.
BARRIER: Disagreement among team members on standards for
"adequate" enforcement procedures
ASSISTANCE:
D Refer to capabilities matrices for examples of acceptable enforcement procedures.
D Offer to meet with Regional UST Attorney to work out substantive
disagreements regarding what is "adequate."
11
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
5) Have the State and Region negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement?
BARRIER: Lack of agreement between agencies that share
responsibilities
ASSISTANCE:
D Offer to meet with all responsible agencies so agreement can be reached.
D Review draft Memorandum of Agreement and provide detailed comments.
BARRIER: Inadequate State preparation and submittal
ASSISTANCE:
D Refer to boilerplate MOA in SPA Handbook as a model that can be largely
copied now and adapted to meet particular State conditions later.
D Inject Federal resources into State programs, conditioned on completion of an
approvable final SPA application by a specified date.
12
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
6) Has the State produced a program description for inclusion in the
final State Program Approval application?
BARRIER: Inadequate State preparation and submittal
ASSISTANCE:
D Provide sample program descriptions completed by other States to be used as
models. Refer States to relevant section in SPA Handbook.
D Review a draft program description and provide detailed comments and
suggestions for completion.
D Encourage and/or provide greater contractor assistance.
13
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
The following are two examples of cases where pre-application review has
been utilized effectively. The first case involved a State regulation
requiring owner/operators to investigate suspected releases when "there is
evidence of a hazardous substance or resulting vapors in the soil, in surface
water, or in any underground structure or well in the vicinity of the
facility." The Federal requirement states that such an investigation should
occur "when required by the implementing agency to determine the source of a
release having an impact in the surrounding area." While the State regulation
was determined to be sufficiently stringent as written, the Regional UST
attorney suggested that the regulation make explicit the requirement "to
investigate at the request of the agency." This example illustrates how the
Region might use the pre-application review process to suggest options for the
State to strengthen or clarify its requirements even if the State Program
Approval objective is met.
The second case involved a State regulation requiring that temporarily
out-of-service UST systems maintain cathodic protection systems, while no
other specific requirements were explicitly imposed upon them. "Temporarily
out-of-service," furthermore, was not defined. Although arguably such tanks
might still have met the definition of either new or existing USTs, and been
subject to the other requirements generally applicable to those classes of
USTs, this interpretation seemed a bit strained, because one requirement
(cathodic protection) was expressly applicable to temporarily out-of-service
USTs. Thus, it seemed as though the State intended to require cathodic
protection only on these UST systems. In review, therefore, the State
regulation was found to be insufficiently stringent, as it failed to specify
the other requirements that the tank systems in question were required to
meet. This is a case where reviewing components of a State application prior
to submittal for approval led to the discovery of a deficiency in a State
program in sufficient time to correct it without delaying approval.
Another tool that can be used during the pre-application phase to ensure
that all required components of the State application are developed and
reviewed in the proper sequence and by the correct personnel can be seen in
Exhibit 2, the "State Program Approval Pre-Application Checklist." Use of the
checklist can help States move toward completion of an approvable State
Program Approval application in an efficient manner and will ensure that there
will be no surprises when a complete application is submitted for review.
14
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
EXHIBIT 2
STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL PRE-APPLICATION CHECKLIST
STATE ACTIVITIES
1) State drafts UST statutes; State
Attorney General conducts analysis
of how they meet the requirements
a. State revises UST statutes
REGIONAL ACTIVITIES
Regional UST program reviews draft UST
statutes
Regional UST Attorney reviews draft UST
statutes
Regional UST program reviews revised UST
statutes
Regional UST Attorney reviews revised UST
statutes
2)
3)
State drafts UST regulations; State
Attorney General conducts analysis
of how they meet the requirements
a. State revises UST regulations
State develops funding sources for
UST program
Regional UST program reviews draft UST
regulations
Regional UST Attorney reviews draft UST
regulations
Regional UST program reviews revised UST
regulations
Regional UST Attorney reviews revised UST
regulations
4)
State develops enforcement
procedures for UST program
a. Procedures acceptable to State
Attorney General's Office
Regional UST program reviews procedures
Regional UST Attorney reviews procedures
5) State drafts program description
5) Attorney General drafts certification
that program requirements are 'no less
•stringent1
7) Governor drafts transmittal letter
8) Draft application sent to Region for
review
Regional UST program conducts capability
assessment
Regional UST program reviews certification to
verify its accuracy
Regional UST Attorney reviews certification to
verify its accuracy
Regional UST program reviews letter for
accuracy and completeness
15
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Overview
The Regional Review Team, which includes the UST Program Manager, staff
representatives from UST program, and a Regional UST Attorney, is responsible
for reviewing State program approval applications, working with the State to
reach agreement on any outstanding issues, and recommending approval decisions
to the Regional Administrator, through the appropriate Regional Division
Director. Regions are not required to consult with OUST on recommended
decisions unless the Region is planning not to approve a State program.
Review and discussion of States' laws regarding underground storage
tanks should begin as the State is developing its application. The Regional
Review Team will identify deficiencies in State laws as soon as possible so
that States will have adequate time to make necessary legislative
modifications and still receive timely program approval. As the first step in
program approval, statutory and regulatory review assures the States of being
able to develop an official program approval application with confidence.
After review of the statutes and regulations the Region, following
consultation with the Regional UST Attorney, should conduct a meeting with the
States' Attorney General (or staff) to discuss any deficiencies found in the
law. Some Regions may wish to have the Regional UST Attorneys take the lead
in setting up such a meeting; this can be a Regional determination. Following
this meeting, the Regions should inform the State of the Agency's concerns
regarding unresolved issues.
As States proceed toward program approval, the Regions must provide on-
going assistance, working closely with the States to ensure adequacy and
completeness of the various components of the State's draft application for
program approval. A thorough review of the various components of the draft
application should begin in the Regions as soon as each is completed by the
State. These pre-application reviews should be timely, with written comments
forwarded to the State within three weeks from date of receipt. This process
alerts the State very early to issues which could later cause a delay in
review and approval of the official application.
Before the State application process began, OUST was responsible for
determining national decision-making criteria for "no less stringent" and
"adequate enforcement". Other Headquarters offices, such as the Office of
General Counsel (OGC), the Office of Enforcement (OE), and the Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement (OWPE), were also responsible for assisting OUST in this
task. During the application review process, OUST, OGC, and OE serve as
resources for the Regions to assist them upon request. Headquarters offices
may make comments on applications but do not have a formal concurrence role
with respect to the Regional Review Team recommendation.
Exhibit 3 displays the interaction between the Regional Review Team and
the other participants in the review process. The following sections more
fully describe the roles suggested for each of the participants.
16
-------
» r
.
o ^
Q- 1
Q. £
E
co
2 D)
19 *-
mfis
CO
£
0)
•4—*
C
03
Q.
"o
•c
03
n
LJL_
k
>
es
50
4
.Is 1 E & 1
.2 3S «2 S 2 C —
05 ^k^I
i
H |
* 8 la
c 2
. J O -
1 'i
U r*
O • =
O
E?
Iff
H w
50 -o .5
sis
Z. u< c
§| |
Ctf BS
«
iJl
.2 50 U 4»
06 C C^
oc
I t*
!SI
i 4
t
t
>,-
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
Regional Review Team Members
Composition of the Regional Review Team will likely vary from Region to
Region. Team members will necessarily reflect the UST staffing levels and
Regional needs and priorities. We suggest that the team be comprised, for
example, as follows: Regional UST Program Manager (Chairperson); Regional
person representing UST enforcement; Regional person representing LUST Trust
Fund policies; Regional person representing the UST program; and a Regional
UST Attorney. Please note that in practice, one Regional person may be
wearing several hats, e.g., UST enforcement, LUST Trust Fund, and UST program.
In many Regions, the UST staff is responsible for UST enforcement. Some
Regions may also wish to have a technical standards expert on the Review Team.
The following elaboration of the roles of the Regional Review Team
members is meant to suggest one possible way in which the review process might
be handled. The Regional Review Team should adopt specific procedures which
best suits its particular organization.
• The Regional UST Program Manager
Conducts pre-application activities such as selling State
Program Approval to key State managers and Attorney General's
Office. Provides any necessary testimony before State Legislature
to support new legislation or amendments relevant to the UST
program.
Attempts to resolve any issues before the State application is
formally submitted. Manages the initial review to determine if
the State application is complete. If necessary, staff works with
the State to supply information missing from the application.
Notifies the State Program Contact when the application is
declared complete. Transmits complete application to Regional
Review Team and tracks review cycle.
-- Chairs the Regional Review Team meetings. Responsible for
negotiating and resolving remaining issues with the State Program
Contact. Recommends an approval decision (tentative and final) to
the Regional Division Director and the Regional Administrator. •
Documents the final position of each member of the Review Team,
especially any reasons to support a recommendation for
disapproval, if any.
- - Manages the public comment process, and conducts a public
hearing if necessary. Sends copies of all public comments to the
Review Team and the State Program Contact. Works with the State
Program Contact to respond to any issues raised by the commenters.
18
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
Regional UST Attorney
-- Responsible for conducting pre-application review activities,
including review of State statutes and early drafts of State
regulations. However, it is not the Regional UST Attorney's role
to review these documents independently. They should first be
reviewed by the State UST Attorney, State program officials, and
Regional program officials. Potential problems should be
highlighted and discussed prior to eliciting Regional UST Attorney
involvement.
- - Regional UST Attorney should keep in mind that all reviews
should proceed using a "no less stringent" approach, as opposed to
the "equivalent and consistent" approach more common to RCRA
Subtitle C-type reviews.
-- While the ultimate decision on the approvability of the program
rests with the Regional Administrator, the Regional UST Attorney
is responsible for advising him/her on that decision.
-- The Regional UST Attorney will be most heavily involved in
reviewing the Attorney General's Statement to determine the
adequacy of the State's legal authorities.
-- Determination of a State's capabilities will largely be left to
the Regional UST Program Manager, who should consult with the
Regional UST Attorney in assessing State capabilities,
particularly capabilities dependent upon legal authorities. The
Regional UST Attorney may need to meet with a representative from
the State Attorney General's Office to resolve outstanding issues.
Other Regional Team Members
-- Responsible for conducting pre-application review activities,
including review of State statutes and early drafts of State
regulations. The review of State statutes and regulations should
be done after the state has had an opportunity to involve its
attorney in the process, -and should be done prior to (or at least
in conjunction with) an EPA attorney's review.
-- Responsible for reviewing the substance of the State
application and making approval recommendations to the Regional
UST Program Manager. Participate in all Review Team meetings and
also attend the briefing for the Regional Administrator. Review
public comments and advise Regional UST Program Manager in
responding to any issues raised by the commenters.
- - Highlight issues for review by Regional UST Attorneys.
19
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
State Applicant
• State Program Contact
-- Submits early drafts of application components for pre-
application review so that any problems may be identified and
rectified as quickly as possible.
-- Submits an official application, preferably using the standard
form developed by OUST. (The standard application fo-rm is
optional; States may tailor the application format to suit their
needs.) Responds to requests from the Regional UST Program
Manager for missing components or additional information needed to
complete the application. Discusses all potential issues with the
Regional UST Program Manager as they arise during the review of
the application. Attends the briefing for the Regional
Administrator on any outstanding issues, along with the State
Agency Director. Receives copies of any written public comments
from the UST Program Manager and works with the Program Manager to
respond to any issues raised by the commenters.
• State Agency Director
-- Meets with the Regional Division Director or Regional
Administrator/Deputy Regional Administrator to pursue negotiation
of problems if the State Program Contact cannot resolve major
issues with the Regional UST Program Manager.
• State Attorney General
-- State Attorney General involvement is essential from the
preapplication stage through final program approval. The Attorney
General must work with the State program in developing State laws
and regulations that will ultimately meet EPA standards. Regional
UST Attorneys generally will not review proposed or draft State
statutes and regulations until a State attorney has reviewed them
with an eye toward meeting the State Program Approval
requirements.
Headquarters Offices
As described earlier, Headquarters offices have a major role to play in
developing national decision criteria (i.e., the criteria Regions apply when
evaluating State applications), but only a relatively minor role in
implementation of these decision criteria during the review of individual
State program applications.
20
-------
OSWER Directive ,9650.12
• Office of Underground Storage Tanks
-- OUST will be available during the pre-application phase for
consultation and will review State program applications when
referred by the Regions.
-- OUST must be consulted if the Regional Administrator expects to
make a negative determination on a State's application. (This
consultation procedure is required by the terms of the existing
delegation of authority from the Administrator to the Regional
Administrator.)
OUST formed a project team to conduct a study on the State Program
Approval process after the first complete State Program Approval applications
were received, and to determine how improvements to the State Program Approval
process could most effectively be made. The team concluded that there was
little need to change the performance objectives; that major improvements
could be realized by training Regional staff in procedures for developing
State Program Approval applications with States and procedures for application
review, and improving the lines of communication between OUST Headquarters and
the Regional UST offices. Therefore,
- - OUST will continue to stress that program and application
decisions should be made at the Regional level, wherever possible.
Consultation between OUST Headquarters and the Regions should be
kept informal; while Headquarters is always available to discuss
issues and provide further information and guidance, decisions
regarding State programs must ultimately be made by the Regions.
-- OUST will stress that the "no less stringent" objectives are
the bottom line in the review of State Program Approval
applications. Flexibility has already been built into these
objectives; they are less specific than the Federal technical
regulations and thus allow States a degree of latitude in
structuring their programs. However, the objectives are
performance standards that must be met fully for a State program
to be approved. Flexibility is encouraged, but programs that do
not meet the objectives cannot be approved.
- - OUST will identify a Headquarters contact person to act as a
"clearinghouse" of information and advice who will process queries
and requests for information from Regions using a consistent set
of answers, procedures, and informational materials. This contact
will ensure the accuracy and consistency of all information
reaching the Regions from Headquarters, and document all
discussions and information transmittals in order to keep track of
what has been requested and what has been provided.
21
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
Office of General Counsel
-- OGC is available during the pre-application phase for
consultation and will review State program applications when
referred by the Regions through OUST.
-- The Regional UST Attorney on the Regional Review Team may
choose to consult with OGC as necessary on any State application.
-- OUST will consult with OGC on an "exceptions" basis as specific
legal issues arise that affect more than one State or Region.
Office of Enforcement
-- OE is available during the pre-application phase and the formal
review process for consultation on the adequacy of State
enforcement procedures.
IV. REVIEW PROCESS
The process we suggest for review of State applications is displayed in
Exhibit 4. Each step on the flow chart is numbered and explained below. As
stated earlier, these steps can be modified to meet Regional needs.
This process assumes substantial pre-application consultation and
cooperation with the State. Prior to the State application being formally
submitted, the Regional UST Program Manager works and negotiates with the
State Program Contact to resolve, wherever possible, outstanding issues.
Codification of State laws should be initiated during this pre-application
phase.
•*g^
Phase 1: Acceptance of Application
1. The State submits an official application. (The standard form developed by
OUST is optional.)
2. Regional UST staff review the State's standard application form or other
application materials using a checklist or similar tool to determine if the
application is complete. This review is conducted as quickly as possible after
receipt of the State's application.
3. The UST Program Manager contacts the State Program Contact to request
missing components or additional information necessary to review the
application.
4. Once the application is declared complete and logged-in, Regional staff
make copies of the official application and distribute it to the Regional
22
-------
o>
•o
0)
O
0)
O
I
O
c
I,
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
Review Team. The Regional UST Program Manager notifies the State Program
Contact in writing that the application has been declared complete and that
the 180-day review process has begun. (See Appendix E, "Checklist for
Complete State Applications," for components of a complete application.)
Phase 2: Substantive Review and Tentative Determination
5. Once the application is complete, we recommend the Review Team take about
three weeks to review the application.
6. Around the beginning of the fourth week, the Review Team meets to discuss
any issues regarding the State's application. The purpose of this meeting is
to decide what issues require additional information or clarification by the
State.
7. The Regional UST Program Manager meets with the State Program Contact
during the fourth week to request any additional information and to negotiate
and resolve any outstanding issues in order to reach a tentative determination
on the application. (Some Regions may wish to maintain a written record of
this step.) At the same time, the Regional UST Attorney may wish to meet with
a representative from the State Attorney General's Office.
8. The State Program Contact submits additional information and interacts
with the Regional UST Program Manager to respond to questions raised by the
Regional Review Team.
9. The Regional UST Program Manager sends the revised State information to
the Review Team. The final review stage begins, which we recommend take three
weeks.
10. The Regional Review Team meets to discuss its recommendation for a
tentative determination. The function of this meeting is similar to a
workgroup closure meeting in the regulatory development process. Each member
of the Regional Review Team is given an opportunity to discuss issues with the
team and to state his or her recommendation for the tentative decision.
Review Team members should focus their comments on issues that are "stoppers".
"Stopper" issues are legal or policy issues that the Regional Administrator
would agree require disapproval of the State's application. The Regional UST
Program Manager is responsible for formulating an overall recommendation for
the Division Director and the Regional Administrator. This recommendation
should be accompanied by a discussion of any issues raised by the Regional
Review Team that are unresolved at the conclusion of its review.
11. The Regional UST Program Manager decides if there are any outstanding
issues regarding the State's application for program approval.
12. The Regional UST Program Manager briefs the Division Director and the
Regional Administrator or Deputy Regional Administrator on the outstanding
issues.
24
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
13. The Regional UST Program Manager notifies the State Program Contact of
the outstanding issues if upper management cannot resolve the issues.
14. The Regional UST Program Manager, Regional UST Attorney, State Agency
Director, State Program Contact, Regional Administrator, and Division Director
meet to resolve any remaining issues. Regional Review Team Members are
present at this briefing in order to provide additional explanation of the
issues, if needed. In the event the Regional Administrator intends to make a
negative determination following this meeting, OUST should be contacted prior
to the official notification of the State Agency Director in step 16.
15. If there are no outstanding issues at step 11, the Regional UST Program
Manager briefs the Division Director and the Regional Administrator or Deputy
Regional Administrator on an affirmative recommendation.
16. The Regional Administrator makes a tentative determination on the
application and notifies the Division Director, the Regional UST Program
Manager, the Regional UST Attorney, and the State Agency Director of his or
her decision. (See Appendix C, Approval Determinations.)
17. The Regional UST staff draft the Federal Register notice of tentative
decision. (Model Federal Register notices are provided as examples in
Appendices B and C to this document.) The Regional UST Program Manager
obtains the Regional Administrator's signature on the Federal Register notice
and the Federal Register notice is published.
18. If this is a notice of tentative decision, the process continues on to
step 19. If this is a notice of final determination, the process skips to
step 23 and ends with program approval, as described below.
19. The public comment period begins. A public hearing may be held at the
conclusion of the 30-day public comment period if requested or if there are
significant unfavorable comments. The notice of the public hearing may be
combined with notice of tentative decision.
Phase 3: Review of Public Comments and Final Determinat
20. As soon as possible after the close of the public comment period, the
Regional UST Program Manager, together with the Regional UST Attorney,
ascertains if any of the public comments are unfavorable or raise significant
issues. The Regional UST Attorney should have the opportunity to review all
comments and make sure that we respond to all significant issues.
21. If unfavorable comments have been received, the Regional UST Program
Manager sends copies of the public comments to the Regional Review Team. The
Regional UST Program Manager notifies the State Program Contact of the adverse
public comments.
25
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
• The Regional Review Team meets to discuss the public
comments and recommend an Agency response. The State
Program Contact is consulted as necessary to provide the
Agency with the additional information it needs to respond
to the public comments.
• The Regional UST Program Manager is responsible for making
an overall recommendation to the Division Director and the
Regional Administrator regarding the Agency's response to
the public comments. The Regional UST Program Manager
prepares a briefing for the Regional Administrator to
present his or her recommendations for final determination
on the State's application.
• The Division Director, Regional Review Team, the State
Agency Director, and the State Program Contact attend a
meeting with the Regional Administrator if there are
unresolved issues. The Regional UST Program Manager
presents his or her recommendation and addresses outstanding
issues regarding the recommended final determination.
• The Regional Administrator makes a decision on the final
determination and directs the Regional UST Program Manager
to prepare the Federal Register notice of final Agency
decision. The Region must consult with OUST prior to making
a negative determination.
22. If no adverse public comments are received, the Regional UST Program
Manager briefs Regional management and makes a recommendation. The Regional
Administrator makes a final determination on the application and notifies the
Division Director, the Regional UST Program Manager and the State Agency
Director of his decision. Regional UST staff prepare the Federal Register
notice of final determination which responds to all significant public
comments, obtain the Regional Administrator's signature on the notice, and
submit it to the Office of the Federal Register. (See Appendices B and C.)
23. The Office of the Federal Register publishes the Federal Register notice,
and the Agency's decision is final.
V. SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS
Subtitle I requires that the Regional Administrator make a final
determination on the application within 180 days from receipt of a complete
application (Section 9004(d)). This section presents two proposed schedules
for getting final approval: one for a streamlined process; and one for a more
extended process within the allowable time period of 180 days. Note that even
a streamlined schedule is estimated to take about 140 days. The dates in the
schedules provided here are suggestions to the Regions for meeting the 180-day
deadline. Regions are encouraged to shorten this schedule whenever possible.
26
-------
OSWER Directive-9650.12
A streamlined schedule for program approval is shown on pages 27 and 28.
This schedule assumes that:
• The State has submitted its statute and regulations for
optional pre-application review. The Region has generally
determined that State requirements are "no less stringent"
than the Federal objectives.
• The Review Team does not require any additional information
in order to evaluate the State's application. There are no
major issues to be resolved with the State prior to
approval.
• There is no request for a public hearing.
• There are no public comments, or the comments are minor and
unrelated to substantive issues in the State's program.
• The Region makes an affirmative determination; therefore no
consultation with OUST is required.
A second schedule, provided on pages 28-30, displays the approval
process over a longer period of time as a result of outstanding issues and
public comments. This schedule still meets the 180-day deadline.
STREAMLINED PROGRAM APPROVAL SCHEDULE
Calendar Days Approval Activities
1 Log and Transmit Complete Application
32 Review Team Completes Initial Review of Application
34 Review Team Closure Meeting To Discuss Recommendations
on the Application
41 UST Program Manager Formulates An Overall
Recommendation and Prepares Briefing For the Regional
Administrator and Division Director
43 UST Program Manager Briefs Regional Administrator and
Division Director on Approval Issues
44 UST Program Manager Notifies the State Program Contact
of Outstanding Issues
27
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
45 UST Program Manager Meets With the Regional
Administrator and the Division Director Regarding the
Tentative Determination; Meets with the State Agency
Director and State Program Contact As Necessary
52 Regional Administrator Makes Tentative Determination
and Notifies UST Program Manager and State Agency
Director
62 Regional Staff Complete Federal Register Notice of
Tentative Decision and Obtain Regional Administrator's
Concurrence
69 Publish Federal Register Notice and Public Comment
Period Begins
99 Public Comment Period Closes
107 UST Program Manager Distributes Public Comments To the
Review Team and State Program Contact
115 Review Team Meets To Discuss Response To Public
Comments
122 UST Program Manager Briefs Regional Administrator and
Division Director On Issues and Meets With the State
Agency Director and State Program Contact If Necessary
129 Regional Administrator Makes Final Determination and
Notifies Division Director, UST Program Manager and
State Agency Director
139 Regional Staff Complete Final Action Memo and Federal
Register Notice of Final Determination, Obtain
Regional Administrator's Signature
143 Publish Federal Register Notice of Final Determination
EXTENDED PROGRAM APPRO\
Calendar Days Approval Activities
1 Log and Transmit Complete Application To Review Team
21 Review Team Completes Initial Review of Application
28
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
24 Regional Review Team Meets with UST Program Manager To
Ascertain Need For Any Additional Information From the
State
25 UST Program Manager Contacts State Program Contact To
Discuss Additional Information (If Necessary)
39 State Program Contact Submits Additional Information
(If Necessary)
53 Review Team Completes Final Review
58 Review Team Closure Meeting To Discuss Recommendations
on the Application
65 UST Program Manager Formulates An Overall
Recommendation and Prepares Briefing For the Regional
Administrator and Division Director
67 UST Program Manager Briefs the Regional Administrator
and Division Director on Approval Issues
68 UST Program Manager Notifies the State Program Contact
of Outstanding Issues
69 UST Program Manager Briefs the Regional Administrator
and the Division Director Regarding Issues on the
Tentative Determination; Meets with the State Agency
Director and the State Program Contact As Necessary
76 Regional Administrator Makes Tentative Determination
and Notifies UST Program Manager and State Agency
Director
86 Regional Staff Complete Federal Register Notice of
Tentative Decision, and Obtain Regional
Administrator's Signature
93 Publish Federal Register Notice and Public Comment
Period Begins
123 Public Comment Period Closes
124 Public Hearing (If Necessary)
131 UST Program Manager Distributes Public Comments To the
Review Team and the State Program Contact
29
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
138 UST Program Manager Meets With State Program Contact
To Discuss Additional Information Needed to Respond To
Public Comments
145 Review Team Meets To Discuss and Draft Agency Response
To Public Comments
148 UST Program Manager Briefs Regional Administrator and
Division Director On Issues and Recommendations For
Final Determination; Meets With the State Agency
Director and State Program Contact As Necessary
156 Regional Administrator Makes Final Determination and
Notifies Division Director, UST Program Manager, and
State Agency Director
162 Regional Staff Complete Final Action Memo and Federal
Register Notice of Final Determination, and Obtain
Regional Administrator's Signature
169 Publish Federal Register Notice of Final Determination
VI. CODIFICATION OF APPROVED STATE PROGRAMS
Codification is the process that identifies the elements of approved
State programs by placing them in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The
codification of State programs is designed to enhance the public's ability to
discern the current status of the approved State program and alert the public
to the specific State regulations that the Federal government can enforce if
necessary. This process will be particularly helpful as States adopt
additional Federal requirements or revise their approved UST programs.
The codified elements of the approved State program are:
• State statute;
• State regulations;
• Attorney General's Statement;
• Memorandum of Agreement; and
• Program Description.
The Attorney General's Statement, Memorandum of Agreement, and Program
Description are codified by listing the title and date of signature in the
codification notice. The State's statutory and regulatory authorities,
however, are actually incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal
30
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
Regulations (CFR). The effect of incorporation by reference is that the
incorporated material has the same legal effect as if it were published in
full in the CFR. State enforcement authorities contained in statutes and
regulations are identified in the codification notice but not incorporated by
reference since EPA uses its own authorities to enforce approved State
requirements.
EPA enforces State regulations that are more stringent than the Federal
requirements, but not those that are broader in scope. For example, EPA will
enforce State regulations that require reporting of all suspected releases,
even though Federal regulations require only that releases of greater than 25
gallons be reported. However, EPA cannot enforce State regulations against
farm tanks excluded from regulations at the Federal level. Therefore, the
codification notice, which is published in the Federal Register, must identify
where the State is more stringent and where it is broader in scope so that the
public as well as the regulated community can ascertain which level of
government (State or Federal) will be enforcing the various program
requirements.
Appendix D contains two model codification notices. Model A is
applicable to tentative and final determinations on initial State program
approval decisions. Model B is an immediate final rulemaking notice
applicable to revisions to approved State programs.
Headquarters has submitted a Federal Register notice to reserve Part 282
for codification of approved State UST programs. Appendix D also contains a
list of the sections within Part 282 that have been specifically reserved for
each of the 56 States and Territories. The Regions should use this list to
identify the sections of Part 282 that should be included in their
codification notices.
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS FOR STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL DECISIONS
Purpose of the Record. The Regions must maintain an administrative
record for each State program approval decision. The administrative record is
simply a compilation of materials considered or relied upon by the Agency in
making an administrative decision, for example, a tentative or final state
program approval decision. The purpose of an administrative record is to
assist the Agency decision makers in considering the basis for proposed Agency
action, and to provide a basis upon which the Agency can defend, and a court
can review, the final administrative decision. The record also provides the
public with background information regarding the Agency's rulemaking.
Content of the Record. Internal communications, (for example, comments
received from within the Region, other Regional offices, or Headquarters), are
generally not part of the administrative record. However, formal guidance
documents or policy directives from Headquarters or memoranda providing
factual information upon which a decision is based may be part of the record.
Note that when EPA-generated information is part of the record, it generally
31
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
must be made available to the public as part of the tentative decision in
order to avoid notice-and-comment problems. Note that communications between
the State and EPA are not internal deliberations and should be treated as any
non-EPA comments. Draft documents are also generally not part of the record
unless they contain information that formed a basis for the state program
approval decision and are not superseded by a final document.
The administrative record for state program approval decisions should
contain all non-EPA comments received during the public comment period. In
addition, the Regions should document any significant non-EPA comments,
whether or not received during the comment period, if they provide information
upon which state program approval decisions are based.
The following list of documents is provided as guidance in establishing
the administrative record:
• Pre-application materials: including correspondence between
EPA and the State relevant to the tentative decision, and
significant EPA comments to the State on pre-application
materials.
• The State program approval application and any subsequent
State submission for consideration in the approval process.
• The Federal Register notice setting forth the tentative
decision and any supporting materials.
The items listed above constitute the administrative record for the tentative
decision and form the basis for public comment on the proposed approval. The
following documents should be added to the Docket because they are part of the
Agency's administrative record on the State program approval.
• Public comments on the tentative decision, both written and
oral. Oral communications should be documented for the
record.
• EPA responses to public comments on the tentative decision.
• The Federal Register notice setting forth the final State
program approval decision and any supporting materials.
The Regional UST Attorney can answer questions concerning what materials
should be included in the record for state program approval decisions.
Additional guidance on establishing an administrative record, also known as a
docket, can be found in the UST Regulatory Docket Procedures Manual.
32
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
APPENDICES
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
APPENDIX A
STATUTORY CHECKLIST
-------
a
H
M
H
OQ
O
CO
W EH
Q CO
3
CO
X
<
c2
o
o
2 %
Pi Pi
PLI O
E-i
U D
H H
CO CO
cu
4J
cd
CO
U)
4J
C
cu
0
cu
bO
cd 2
0) JH
o
a
CU
4-1 CU
cd 4J
CO CJ
1— 1
cu
I—I Q)
4-1 4-1
•i— I »iH
4J U
X>
CO
4J
C
E
0)
i-i
W
J>^
P
o
4J
3
4J
cd
CO
r-l
^
r-l
O
o
w
cu cu
4-1 Q) O *•
Cd Xi "rl (^ ^J
4J 4J > UP
CO CO 4-1 -i-l O
l-l T3 O X P.
i cu u a.
r* ^*i ^i 3
X o •• >-i r-i tn w
C CU Cd '.-I r-l
cd C ta C l-i cd r-i
E-t O V* O Cd *r4 Cd
•r-IO) -H E S-I l-l
CU 4-> > 4-1 >H 0) 3
bO O >rl Cd l-l 4J 4-1
cd -i-i c 4-1 p, cd o
l-i T3 3 w E 3
O W *O l-l
4-> ••-!,*£ !>% Q) C 4J
CO l-l C C 4-1 CU W
3 cd cd o X
"O M— ) 4-1 3 4-1 CU
C^ /""N l-l l-l *O
3 cu t>o ^ 4J cd -ri
o > C C w cu >
w s-icd-ri cdCCo
C bOX S 4-1 O O l-i
o i-i o ^ o C a.
•H (1) 4-1 r-l
4J T) W r-l
•H C 3 0
C P 6 "w cd
•H
4-1
cd cd w 3 cu
4J r-l C CO E
C 3 -rl -rl
O bO cd T3 4J
O 0) 4-1 OJ
l-l C 4J 4-1
o o cd o
4J 4-1 O r-*
0 3 T)
cu C o cu -H
W O vl 1-4 rJ
3 -n x; cu
^ 4-> 3 cd p.
n
X
C XI CU 4-i bO cd
r-l Cd 3 X O C tt)
i-H 4J W 4J -H C
cd a) cx cu
CD "O 4-4 l-l -H Xt
•O X CU OOP,
cd rt cu T> o
O r-l O J-l C
**""s ^J ^ C^ O ^ OJ
bO bO 4-1 T3
C "O cu l-i s~s x cd -
•rICUl-l 3OCl-lr-l
P, 4-1 M r-l cd bO (3
•rl O X 4J •!-!
P.CUOS CO X! *-• S l-i
C -rl O X 4J O CO
TJCXr- 1 4J -i-l CU i— 14-1
CUOJS4-I SEcucd
4-> 0 X 3 X E
CJ X W 4-1 ^ r-l
CUbObOCU cd'OOS-i'O
CC3O cuC>cuC
C-rlOC C3 X3
OCtl-icd CUOCU4JO
O-HX-tJ Xl-iX-Hl-i
— P.4-1U) — ^b04JCUbO
CJ T3
-------
oo co
[K
o
CU
cfl
4J
CO
W
4-1
c
Q)
O
U
0)
t>0
CO 53
0) >-i
O
u
CU
4-1 0)
cfl 4-1
4-1 T-l
CO U
H-l
CU
rH Q)
4-J 4-J
•rl T-l
4-1 U
ft
3
C/1
4J
0)
CU
i— 1
U
^,
i-l
o
3
cfl
4-1
CO
i-l
^^
i— |
O
o
o^
en
0)
>-. 0,
Cfl C r>1
B 0 4J •-
•rl 4J
01 4-> 00 1-1
CU O C (fl
4J T-l •!-! CO.
Cfl TD 3
4J CO 0 C
C/l T-l 1— 1 -t-l
i-l I-l
• 3 0 W
•r-l 4-1 O
CO
C ^ O Q)
O »i^ jG r-(
•i-l ® 4J O
w ,C 4:
3 4-J *4H U
r-l O
OS C
X o £ 4-1 >
CU r-l Ul E C
i-l r-l O *O O
cfl i-i O 0)
i-l bO O C CO i-l
O 4-1 O 3O
O C 4-1
EOT) ^
i-l i-l CU i-l C r-l
cfl - c/i o cfl T-I
4-1 r-l 3 4-1 4J O
.
cfl ,0
*
CU
C }~t
•rl O
T3 r-l
CU CU 4J
4J &, W O
Cfl -H 3 < W i-l
r-l Oj O T-I 0)
3 T> >-> & 4J
bO CO i-l 4-> (fl
0) cfl (fl 0) IS - S
Vl O N 4-1 cfl 4-1 CU
Cfl Cfl r-l C 4J
^r-l X 00 0) WE
4-J cfl CU E Cfl CD
•rli-l T-l Q) (fl- SCU
4J CUCUCU3&, 4-IT3 Vlr-l
O, O,T3-4-lcrS >-iC Or-l
0) -rlCcfl-HO 3O 4JO
CO O-3C/3JO WO, WO
. . .
O T3 a) 4-1
-------
"
Pu O
U P
H EH
EH EH
CO CO
LXi
O
*"•]
J^
g
PL,
^*
CO
4-1
C
M-l
CO U
CU
r-l 0)
4J 4J
•i-l -i-l
4J C_>
3
CO
4J
C
-iH CU
0 X!
J M
cd 60 O CO
1-1 C 4J 60
60 CO ••-<
CU CO J-l T> "O
4-) a) cu cu C
Co xi 4.) cd
•i-l O 4J Cd
1-1 cd i-i C
X ex 60 cu o
C ^ --i
cd 60 "O 4->
4J C C >~, 0
•r-i cd i-i 3
Xi l-i J-> T)
60 3 ex u o
3 4J Cd CU 1-1
o o i-i s-i ex
1-1 Cd 4-> -i-l
XI 4-1 i TJ CQ
4-> 3 T3 cd
C --H CO 60
3 cfl 3
cd
^i
0)
ex
o
60
C
•t-l
CM
i-l
O
o
CU
•o
3
M t-l
>-i CU O
o -o c
C i-i
C 3
O 4->
C co
T) cd 3
cu E
4-> C
CO .H CU
O 4-1
o i-i cu cd
r-l O O 4J
O C W
A! i-l cd
C 4-1 E 4->
-i > 3 cu l-i
O O O 4-1 4J
4J XI S-I Cd CU
co co 60 t-i ex
3
60
CU
•i-i aj cd
'
*
J-
o
x:
CO
cu
o
c
4_J
CO
X)
3
CO
E
3
cu
t-l
O
1-1
4J
CU
•
cd
1-1
cu
ex
E
cu
4J
•o
1-1
cd
•o
c
cd
4-1
CQ
4-1
cd
•o
•t-l
3
ty
•H
ex t-i
i-i
i— i
cd
CU
U
cd
60
C
•I-l
•o
I-l
o
c
•I-l
K
cu
1-1
3
CO
CO
cu
1-1
ex -
t-i
•O -.-I
C 0
cd
cu
CU 4J
1-1 CO
3 CO
CM
i-l
0
O
ON
CU
4J
cd
4J
CO
t
CQ
CU
O
C
cd
4J
CO
XI
3
CQ
CO
3
O
•o
1-1
cd
N
cd
Xi
Xi
~,-t-l N
C 4-i co
co co x:
,—4
CU 3 co
T3 60
3 CU CQ
i-l l-i cd
U
X O U
CU 4J
CU
>-, 4J i-l
CO O 4-1
E CU -H
•!-) 4-1
W Xi Xi
333
XI CO W
X!
4-J
0
X)
j_!
o
CQ
CU
o
c
cd
4— )
U]
XI
3
CO
CO
3
0
•o
l-i
cd
M
cfl
x:
i-i
0
g
cu
r— 1
O
1-1
4->
CU
ex
1-1
0)
£>
o
o
^
cfl
E
E
cfl
60
O
l-i
ex
CU
4J
cd
4J
CO
*
-------
4->
cfl
CO
en
4J
C
0>
E
E
O
o
CD
00
cfl Z
0> >-"
O
0
4>
4-> CD
Cfl 4-)
CO U
I-l
0)
r-l ,
i-l JC cfl C
0 -03
C H 0
i-l O CU 5-1
X bO
4-> -4-11-1
' 0) 4-1 CD
30 --O
E H q
i-i 0 3
0) O 4-1
4J 5-i C
Cfl -U >*i Cfl
4J q 4J
CO O *r-i 4-1 ****-
O i-l O C
i ••-< cfl
C JO q 4-1
5-1 i-l -H O
O 01 T-l 0)
4J C C 4J bO
cfl O O cfl cfl
5-1 to pu 5-i 5-i
0) 5-1 W CU O
p. O 0) P« 4J
O P. 5^ O W
^
^
x-s
in
i-H
o
o
- T>
C bO C
cfl C 3 -
•i-l O 5-1
3 C cfl M cfl cfl
O 4J i-l -O T3 5-i
C -U C C 3
•H -H - 3 3 W
E bO o XI
4J a) C p 5-t 3
in 1-1 ca bo to
3 - O.
E M cfl g o 5-i
C 0 O 4J 0
0) T-4 W !-i C
4-) *"j Q) 4-4 i-l -
cfl cfl 5^
40 o - BO.M 3 0
Oi W 73 O W W W
.
in
o
o
Oi
>-,
C *->
cfl C
•r-l
0) O
73 •!—)
3
5-1
O
C O 5-1 -rH
O O O r-l O
0) cfl •!-!
- -H
C 5-1 cfl C O O
5-1 0) O 5-1
O E 0)
P. q - E
•o
cfl
4->
3 w O
CU -i-l
O en
O -U
u
IS
5
M
0)
4J O
i-i in
4-1 4->
cfl C nj C >-i co
4J-cfl 4J3C--
COi-H Pub05-l4-) O C CUT)
cflECcOC-HO4-ioi
O 73
3
Cfl W 4J >r-l
•H M CO C
w -H o o C C
5-i 73 O C O -H
E cs
E
-------
a
H
03
D
00
W H
o 10
Z H
D K-l
«
W O
« U
C5
O SH
a; Pd
Pk O
H
Ed D
H H
CO CO
Cb
O
§
cu
4-1
cfl
1)
CO
CO
4-1
C
cu
g
g
o
0
cu
60
CO Z
i-l \
cu >-<
O
0
cu
4-1 CP
CO 4-1
4J •!-!
CO O
h-1
CU
r-l tO
4J 4J
•r^ »rH
4-1 O
XI
3
CO
4-1
C
0)
g
cu
i-i
U
^>,
J_4
o
2
4J
cd
4-1
CO
r-l
^
Cfl
^
O
O
ON
0)
4J
Cfl
4-1
CO
i
in
4_)
C
0)
0)
J-I
•H
3
o
cu
Pi
C
0
•H
4-1
O
CU
4_>
CU
Q
y
cfl
(i)
,J
.
fQ
K^
Cfl
CU
x; i-i
CO
•r-l Cfl
r-l
Xi W)
Cfl C
4-1 -r-l
to C
0) >H
cfl
0 4->
4J C
•r-l
r^t tfl
4-1 e
•i-i
M J-I
0 0
(~t C^
4J
3 to
C
cu cu
> g
cfl cu
rC W
•r-l
4J 3
to cr
3 cu
g J-i
i— i
O -
J-i bO
4J C
C "H
O 4-1
O W
CU
>1 4-1
J-I
0 X
4-1 C
C CO
0) 4->
^
C Xi
t-l 4-1
•H
- u
g
CU J-4
4J CU
to x:
;>~> 4-1
CO CU
60
C 0
O 4->
•H
4-1 g
U CU
01 4-1
4-1 CO
CD >->
•O CO
cfl
•0 C
O -H
c*.
4-1 to
CD CU
6 co
cfl
j-i cu
0 --I
CU
CU
4J >-,
to 14-1
r^"> *l~l
to 4J
C
cu cu
1— 1 T3
XI -i-i
cd
i-l 0
Cfl 4-1
d.
E T3
o cu
0 C
CO -H
to
l-l CU
O 'Q
c
o •
•H 4J
4J C
U CU
CU g
4-1 C
0 0
M J-I
CL-H
CD C
X cu
4-1
HI
x: x:
i i j_)
•i-i
s -o
c
4J cfl
C
cu Xi
4-1 4-1
CO i-l
•rH Cfl
CO CU
C Xi
o
o c
cfl
J-4 g
cu 3
c x:
Cfl t(-4
g 0
x-s
CM
^^
cfl
••-•
o
o
ON
CU
4-1
cfl
4J
CO
1
CO
4-J
c
CU
E
CU
i-l
•r-l
3
D
cu
OS
bJ
c
•r-l
D
CD
0)
_y
TD
J_j
O
CJ
0)
05
.
CJ)
CO
•o
O
x; o
CO 0)
•I-l J-I
1— 1
XI 60
cfl C
4J -r-l
•co C
CU *H
cfl
O 4J
4J C
•r-l
>-> cfl
4J g
•r-l
i-l i-l
0 0
£. 4-1
4J
3 to
cfl 4J
C
CD CD
> g
cfl 0)
Xi J-<
•r-l
w 3
W CT
3 cu
g J-i
C
O
4J
CJ
cu
4J
CD
T3
^J
cd
0)
r-i
^
o
60
C
J-4
O
4J
•r-4
C
0
g
>-,
c
cfl
<4-l
0
E
cu
4-1
CO
^
to
1— 1
0
i-l
4-1
C •
0 E to
U O 4-J
4J C
>-. to cu
J-i >. g
o to cu
4-1 J-l
CM M-l
CD C 3
C 4-1 CU
•H CO Oi,
0)
i-l 4-1 61
0 C
^£ -r-l
g C 4-1
cu cd i-i
4-14-1 O
to o
>-, S-i CU
CO O Oil
Q
CO
^
cfl
o
o
V
i cu C
cu to cfl
J-I Cfl 4J
•H CU
3 r-i CD
cu cr cu 60
> 0) J-4 Cd
cd i-i i-i
f. >, 0
Xi C 4J
4J W Cfl CO
CO -r-l
3 I-H 60T3
g x> c c
Cfl -r-l 3
CD 4-1 4-J O
4-1 CO J-I i-l
cfl CU O 60
4-1 CX J-I
co o cu cu
4J i-l "O
' C
>> i-i 3
tO 4-1 O
CU >r-l 4-1 C
CO i-l Cfl
cfl O to
CD x: -P g
r-l 4-1 C O
0) 3 cu i-i
Pi cfl E 4-1
i— 1
-------
CO
cfl
CO
CO
4—)
C
01
e
E
O
U
CO
bO
cfl 2
S-i \
CO >H
0
U
CO
4J CO
Cfl 4-1
4-1 -r-l
CO O
M
CO
r-l CO
4J 4J
•r*4 *i"4
4-1 U
i-Q
3
00
4J
(3
CO
co
r-l
W
^
j_j
O
3
4J
cfl
4-1
CO
fl
^
tfl
>w/
o
0
ON
4-1
CO
3
E 43
in
CO v4
4-> r-l
cfl 42
4J tfl
CO 4-1
01
i CO
C 0
0 4J
•r-l
4-> >i
0 4-1
tfl -i-l
S-l
CO O
> 43
•H 4-1
4-1 3
O tfl
CO
S-l CO
S-l r^
O cfl
U 43
.
0) 4J
r-l O
•r-l CO
3 S-i
cr s-i
co o
S-l 0
C
cfl
E
0 •
S-l £6
ii i r*
cfl
CO 4-1
01
cfl CO
CO bO
i-l Cfl
CO r-l
S-l O
4-1
CO Cfl
0 T3
4J C
3
a) o
01 S-l
C bO
O S-l
a. to
01 T3
0) C
)-i 3
£
^
m
^
o
o
ON
1
Cfl
4J
c
CO
E
co
•H
3
D
CO
C
O
•H
4->
O
^J
CO
•r-l
4-1
U
co
S-l
S-l
o
.
W
43
01
•H E
rH O
43 CO S-l
tfl > IM
4-1 1-1
01 4J CO
CO O CO
CO Cfl
O S-l CO
4-1 S-l r-l
O CO
^ O S-l
4-1
•r-l bO Cfl
s-i G
O -rH O
4-1 CO
3 4-> CO
CO CO
M C
CO O O
CO 01
J2 cfl CO
4J S-l
4-J £3
to co C
3 6 "H
E
SJ C
0) -r-l O
4J 3 -r-l
co a* 4->
4-1 CO O
co s-i cfl
^
c
tfl
4-1
CO
bO
to
S-l
o
4-1
en
T3
c
3
0
bO
^_)
C
rH CO CO
U 43 E
PL,
0
4->
C
•r-l
01
CO CO
S-l 0
3 C
4-J CO
3 4-1
<4-l 01
42
4-1 3
C 01
co
> T)
CO CO
S-l 4-1
CL, cfl
r-l
0 3 •
4J 00 4-1
CO S3
to s-i co
i^ c3
C «4-l C
cfl 0 0
4-1 S-l
01 -r-l
CO CO >
bO 01 C
cfl CO CO
S-i CO
O rH CO
4-1 CO 43
CO S-l 4-1
VO
!X ^
cfl O
O 0
0 0
O\ ON
4J
in i
3 to
E S-i
•H
co 3
4-1 cr
cfl to
4J S-l
CO
i 01
•r-l
r^i i — '
4J 4D
•H Cfl
rH 4-1
••H tn
42 CO
•H
01 O
C 4J
O
p >,
in 4->
CO -H
a! s-i
o
rH 43
Cfl 4-1
•H 3
O cfl
C
cfl CO
C >
•r-t Cfl
fl_| f~j
CJ
00
C b*0
<4-l T-l C
O ,Y -H
cfl 4-J
CO 4J tfl
O 01
C S-i C
CO O CO
T3 C4-I CL
•H S
> >-, 0
CO 4-J O
•H
bOrH T3
C -H C
•r-l 43 cfl
C T-l
•H CO C
cfl C O
4J O -H
C P. 4J
•H CO O
cfl CO cfl
E S-i
CO
S-l rH >
O Cfl -r-l
M-l T-l 4J
0 0
01 C CO
4-J cfl S-l
C C S-i
CO -H O
E <4-l 0
-------
D
CO
a;
w H
a co
z M
CO O
X u
< SB
K U
O
O SM
Pd Od
W
H H
W CO
1
PL,
PH
0)
4-1
tfl
4-1
CO
to
4J
C
01
E
£
O
U
01
bO
ffl 2
J-i \
OJ >->
0
U
4-1 O>
4-> i-l
CO U
1— 1
n;
i-( O!
4J 4J
••-1 -H
4-1 C_>
43
3
CO
4-1
C
0)
£
0)
i-l
W
^
J-i
O
4_)
I i
(fl
4J
CO
T3
.T) C
C tfl
tfl
>~. to
J-l T3
3 -O
••-i 3
C M
•i-l
^
r*"» 43
i-l
1-1 *r3
*O 0)
O tfl
43 3
tfl
H U
O
M-l 0)
bO
CO CO
01 g
•H tfl
.W 13
J-i
tfl >-,
P, 4J
J-l
"O (U
J-l P-
•rH O
rC J-l
4-J Qt
bO
C T)
•-I C
to 3
•rH o
J-l J-i
tfl bO
J-i
en o)
0) -O
tO C
tfl 3
0)
r-l C
0) tfl
J-l
(4.1
r-l O
•u C
C 0
0) -r-l
T3 4J
•rH (fl
O J-l •
U O> ^
tfl P. C
0 tfl
C 4-*
(U 0)
•o 4: o>
T3 4J bO
3 tfl
co £ J-i
COO
O J-l 4-1
C CM co
r-H
tfl
•rH tfl
O Cfl
§*
C 4J
C4-I
CM
CO i-l
•r-l
43 >~.
4-1 4->
i-l
4: »-l
CO O
•H 43
r-l *J
43 3
tfl tfl
4-1
W >->
•rH
£**» r-H
Cfl >rH
E 43
•1-1
01 10
4-1 C
tfl 0
4-> P,
CO M
V
< J-4
P
01
4-1
to C
•r4 O
c -rH
i-l 4J
1 S
cfl C
0)
•o a
c g
(fl O
0
p.
o *o
r-i e
o)
0) C
•o o
1-1
0 4-J
4J fj
cfl
4J ai
•rH ^*
J-l i-l
O 4J
rC 0
4-> 0)
3 rJ
tfl J-l
o
0) C
("!
4J tfl
c
tfl
4J
C
o
Cfl
0)
O!
CM •
to
>-. J-i
43 0
4J
*O Cfl
cu j-i
o cu
C P.
cfl o
C
•H -d
to
£
cfl ca
J-i J-i
bO 0)
0 C
J-l ^
P. 0
/— *
/—
cfl
s^ •
^-
o
0
ON
0)
Cfl
4-1
CO
3
E
CO
0)
4J
tfl
4-1
CO
1
CO
T3
J-l
tfl
•o
C
tfl
4J
W
y
C
cfl
H
jj
0)
2
ac
0)
o
c
cfl
E
J-i
0
J-l
01
p.
43
Cfl
•H
r-l
O
cfl
CO
Ol
0
4-1
r^
4-1
•1-1
J-l
0
c1.
4-1
3
cd
Ol
43
4-1
O)
bO
tfl O
J-l -4-1
O
4-1 T!
Cfl Ol
4-1
*"C3 **H
C E
3 .H
O r-l
J-l
bO 4-1
J-l 0
01 C
•o
C 4-1
3 3
3
cu bo
C C
•i-i ••
j-i T) bo
0 3 C
IM i— i -i-i
o 3
tfl C o
T3 "H r-l
J-i r-i
tfl - O
•O co CM
C . X
cfl £ 0)
-U <$ X
CO 4-) JJ
X— s
00
s~^
n3
V '
^J-
0
0
CO
01
4J
ctf
4J
CO
1
CO
4J
C
0)
C E
O 01
•H f-4
4-1 T-l
0 ^ 3
C C 01 4J 0
O O 4-1 .r-l 0>
•I-l •!-( 0) I—I OS
4-1 4J T3 -H
O tfl 43 C
3 i-l 01 -i-l O
C J-l r-l CO 4J -r-l
bO 4-1 (fl (fl cfl 4J
•i-l CO 4-1 01 O. Cfl
CO C W r-l E O
0) O C 0) O -i-l
T3 O -i-i J-i o CM
lf_j
JJ
o
cfl 43 O T) 0) 2
i — i
CNI
0
o
O>
f-
CO
r-l
cfl
JJ
CO
0)
O
4J
^
JJ
• r-l
J-l
0
JJ
3
cfl
0)
rC
JJ
QJ
£>
cfl
43
JJ
to
3
E
-------
Id
E-r
M
CQ
CO
&
W EH
Q CO
Z M
D i-J
CO O
£ Id
2 U
O
PH O
EH
W D
H EH
CO CO
O
H-l
•<
O
ex;
PL|
P-.
0)
4-1
Cfl
4J
CO
in
4J
c
0)
E
E
o
u
bQ
cfl Z
i-i \
0
U
0)
4J 0)
Cfl 4-1
4-1 *|H
co a
M
0)
i-l 4)
4-1 4-1
•H -i-l
4-1 O
,0
3
CO
4-1
C
4)
E
0)
r-i
w
^^
}_l
o
4J
3
4-1
cfl
4J
CO
"O
0)
•r-l
U-l
•H
O
4)
Cl-
lO
(0
4_)
C
0)
E
4)
•H
3
CT
0)
S-1
C
0
•iH
4J
CO
O
•H
4-1
•H
4-1
O
C
4)
.C
4->
TJ
C
cfl
r-l
cfl
O
•r-l
4-1
Cfl
01
(X
O
s^
c
cfl
m
o
4-1
S~^
CO
CM
O
O
c
•1-1
4)
bO
CO
i-i
O
jj
CO
13
C*
3
0
bO
!-i
4)
•o
0
3
f_)
cfl
C
O
^-4
4-1
CO
4)
fv
O
I
C
o
c
UO
o
o
CTv
bQ
C
i-4
4J
4-1
»H
E ^ PH
XI O 4-)
3 C 1-1
to 4> Vi
bO O
5-1 ^ c|
0 4J
4-10) 3
J3 • <
CO 4J /-v
4-> X> P"
CO"-' r(
4) 4-> CM -U
E 0 C
0) C O U
V^ O O^
•i-l .i-l T3
3 -U C C
CT cfl i-( cfl
a> E
>-i >-i -a c
O 4) O
•O 4-4 4-J «r-l
C C
bO 4) >-i
Oi-i C OO bOU-iCO
4->O -i-l 4-14-1 cfl O-H T3
4J-4J-O 1-IT3 bOO)
?*-! cfl ^ cflcU-"*- oCm *O C i *
4-1 M C i— 1 4-* W bO p*t 4J Cfl 4) 4) «H CO
•H4)Ifl41Cfl4-)CCin i-lCS-l-H
VlCZi44->V4>r-IC*i-ICO 4-lCL'r-IOG
OO O4I4-I T3OECQ4-1O
r1. ci)CO4-icninCncfl4-^ *iH to
4-i)-ibOocnCa)(l)3a.inCCin
3ocfl.HWO4JBoin oocfl
Cfl V-t 4-1 Cfl O *r-l VI C C O E
V-lOfl Vt4-)bO*i-IO
4)4)4-JEJ-ivio i-i cotn4-itn
X C M >-i 1-1 1-1 CBOIOS-ICUOA:
4-1 S O 4) 4) bOi-l T3 4-1 4) O 3 C
O'O'WXXCXlC CXC'OcB
4) CC4-)4-).r4cfl3-- CBC4J
>r>-,3'H MC T)?~>4JO
cfl C O -13 OOC4>CWOO>
b04J4-ifO--O
E 4-1 C C71 C 4-^ rC 4-1 4) ***•
3 4) fC 4)Q)Cfl^tn 4-lCbC
to C V-i G E J-t *iH C cfl cfl C
4) •!-( C 3 O. T-l !-l 4) T-l r-i 4-> -iH
4-1 Cfl CO C 10 't-l 3 41 O ,*^ cfl ^ 4-1
(04-1 O 3 CT* 4-1 (fl C 4-1 bO CD tO
4-1,04-1 P.O CT4) Ci-l (flJ3 4)ja 0)
CO O O 3 4-1 41 J-l 4) P 4-J O i-l 4-1 4-1
.
r-l
bO
C
•H
T3
C
Q
J-J
i-l
3
i-i
O
K
en
4J
C
4)
4-1
C
0
K
4J
c
4)
g
a.
•rH
^
CT
4)
O
4-1
to
4)
O
O
cfl
4)
P>
cfl
,C
O
4-1
•u
c
cfl
. «
4-1
C
£
£
Q
J-t
•r-l
^
C
4)
j^
a
o
o
Q
4J
i-l
O
_
en
4)
E
4-1
4)
i— 1
Xi
(0
c
o
to
C^
flJ
J_(
,__!
r-l
cO
4->
cd
-------
a
H
M
EH
CQ
D
CO
erf
W H
a &o
M CJ>
§s
Crf U
o
9 £
04 Crf
PH O
W O
H H
fa
O
O
OS
(U
4J
cfl
I)
cn
en
u
C
-l
0
o
0)
4J
mil
4-J
4-> -r-l
CO U
(—1
a)
r-< 0>
4-1 4->
•r*4 *^
4-1 U
•§
CO
4->
C
0)
0)
1-1
W
>1
i-l
o
4J
3
J 1
4J
cfl
1)
CO
•
01
ly
^b
C a>
cfl X
4-> 4J
O T3
JS 60 4-10)
0 C • C
3 "H E >>-H
01 U CO 4J Cfl
i-l ^ -r-l 4J
O O 60 i-i XI
4-> 4H O O O
c ^ x;
60 a> a. 4-1 c
C 30
•iH 4-4 CQ Cfl i-l
4-1 O >f-l 4-1
cfl X! 0) CO
i-t 0) 4J > E
4) W Cfl i-l
>-( o 4n x; o
a. o u-i
CQ 1-1 4J C
•O 3 01 01 i-l
i-i Pu C 3
0 O E 4)
O 4) -i-l X!
0) XI W 01 4->
i-l 4J .r-l 4)
> 4-1 0)
i-l i-l O cfl J^
4-1
i-l
i-l
O
X!
t3
3
cd
4)
>
O
XI
CO
4)
4-1
M
4)
•a
3
_
c
o
•H
4-1
o
>H
i-l
4->
U
4)
i-l
4->
3
O
x:
4->
•H
u
41
i— 1
•8
rH
•H
Cfl
CO
<
DM
U
co
p
4)
x:
4J
o
4-)
*
4-)
01
4)
cr
41
1-1
C
O
IX
3
•o
4)
N
•iH
i-l
O
x:
4J
3
cO
f^
1— 1
3
•o
>,
cfl
O
4->
•o
C
cfl
,
10
en
4)
1-1
60
C
o
o
4-1
0
4)
4)
4-1
4-1
•r-l
E
E
O
o
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
APPENDIX B
GUIDANCE ON PREPARING FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
GUIDANCE ON PREPARING FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
This appendix provides guidance on publishing a document in the Federal
Register. In addition, the appendix contains model Federal Register notices
for State program approval. These models have been prepared in Federal
Register format for your convenience.
In preparing a document for publication in the Federal Register, the
author(s) must observe several important formatting and editing
specifications. The following sections outline and explain the most important
of these document guidelines.
I. Federal Register Checklist
Each Federal Register package must include a completed Federal Register
checklist. This two-page form consists of "yes" or "no" questions concerning
the document's compliance with the following format and content requirements:
Billing code information;
Headings (e.g., Agency name, CFR Part, subject);
Preamble requirements (e.g., summary of proposed action,
addresses for public comment, supplementary analysis);
Words of issuance;
Regulatory text;
Signature; and
Consecutive page numbers.
All submissions to the Federal Register must also fulfill the following
lay-out specifications:
Bond paper or legible photocopy (8-1/2" x 11");
Single-sided copies;
One-inch margins from top, bottom, and right sides; 1-1/2-
inch margin from left side;
Double-spaced text;
Typed name and title of signing official, ink signature;
Deliver three originals with ink signatures; the signature
may not appear on a page by itself; and
Page numbers must be consecutive and appear at the bottom of
the page.
A sample Federal Register checklist is included in this appendix.
B-l
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
II. Typesetting Request
This one-page form (EPA Form 2340-15) includes the financial data and
the approximate cost of typesetting a document submitted for publication in
the Federal Register. The Management Division Director may require certain
signatures on this form. Data on the following items are also required:
Title of rule;
Number of manuscript pages;
Number of columns;
Estimated cost; and
Financial data.
The approximate cost is $125.00 per column and $375.00 per page in the
Federal Register. A sample typesetting request form is included in this
appendix along with instructions for completing the form.
III. Expedited Printing Request
If a document must be published promptly in order to meet statutory
deadlines, the author(s) may submit an expedited printing request. This form
is a letter requesting publication of the document at the earliest possible
date or prior to a certain date, and must also justify the reason for the
request. The workgroup chairman should submit the letter to the Director of
the Executive Agencies Division at the Office of the Federal Register (Attn:
Martha Girard; The Office of the Federal Register; National Archives and
Records Services, GSA; Washington, D.C. 20408; (202) 523-5240).
B-2
-------
FEDERAL REGISTER CHECKLIST FOR
NOTICES," PP.OPOSED AND FINAL RULE DOCUMENTS
(Attach to all documents that are to be published in the Federal
Register. Only complete the section that applies to the document
to be published. All of these question's can be answered through
the Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook [DDHJ).
SECTION ONE; NOTICE DOCUMENTS
(This section applies to Notice of public hearings, meetings,
and/or workshops, Correction Notices, Notices extending comment
periods, and Notices of Aval-lability)
Yes No
1. Is your document classified correctly? If it is rule
related, or a technical amendment it may be considered
a proposed or final rule. (DDH 5-7)
2. Does your document include the required preamble
elements (optional for notices): Agency Action;
Summary; Dates; Addresses; For Further Information
Contact; Supplementary Information? (DDH 51-55)
3. Does your summary answer the three required Questions:
What you're doing, Why you're doing it, and the
-I-zendec Effect of your action? (DDH 53)
4. Is the signers name and title printed below the
signature? (DDH 61)
5. Are the pages numbered consecutively?
6. Are the copies sharp, clear and legible, especially
illustrations?
7. Are you submitting the orginal plus 3 copies? Do
your copies match? (DDH 62)
SIGNED
-------
10. Are the pages numbered consecutively?
11. Are your copies sharp, clear and legible,
especially illustrations?
12. Is there a new. OMB control number? If so, is it
mentioned in the amendatory language and set out
correctly? (DDH 36)
13. Is the signer's name and title printed below the
signature? (DDH 61)
14. Are you preparing a proposed and final rule? They
cannot be prepared in the same document, they must
be separate documents. (DDH 7)
15. Are your submitting the original plus 3 copies? Do
your copies match? (DDH 62)
Signed
M TWO; PROPOSED AND FINAL RUL£S
Yes_)_No
i
1. Does your document include the required preamble
elements: AiENCY, ACTION, SUMMARY, DATES, ADDRESSES,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION? (DDH 12-18)
2. Does your Summary answer the three required questions:
What you're doing, tftvy you're doing it, and the
Intended Effect of your action? (DDH 14)
3. Have you included your List of Subjects (Thesaurus
Terms) at the end of Supplementary Information?
(DOB 18)
4. Is your Amendatory language clear and correctly
worded? (DDH 25-26)
5. Is your Authority Citation your first amendment?
(DDH 19)
6. Did you use the most recent version of the CFR
and LSA? (DDH 26)
7. Have you included the Table of Contents for each
entire CFR part of subpart that you are adding or
amending? Do heading in the regulatory text match
those in the table of contents? (DDH 36)
8. Are all CFR paragraphs given a letter or nunber in
correct sequence? (a), (1), (i), (A) (DDH 30) .
9. Is text of regulation displayed correctly (include
all section headings, and place the asertrisks
appropriately)? (DDH 30)
-------
TYPESETTING REQUEST FORM
Item 1 - Fill in the title of the Federal Register submission.
Item 2 - Include the type of submission (e.g., proposed rule, final rule).
Item 3 - Obtain number from the Agency Printing Officer. The number is
supplied by the Government Printing Office.
Item U - To be completed by the Office of the Federal Register.
Item 5 - To be completed by the Office of the Federal Register.
Item 6 - To be completed by the Office of the Federal Register.
Item 7 - Fill in the number of pages of your regulatory document.
Item 8 - To estimate the columns: two pages of double spaced text yields one
Federal Register column.
Item 9 - To estimate the cost: $125.00 per Federal Register column;
$375.00 per Federal Register page;
A table or graph is considered as one page.
Item 10 - Financial data should be supplied by the committment clerk in OUST.
This data must include the document control number; the account code; the
object class code; and the dollar amount.
Item 11 - The program manager's signature.
Item 12 - The Federal Register desi'gnee's signature. The Federal Register
designee is located in the Office of the Assistant Administrator for OSWER.
Item 13 - The commitment clerk for OUST (or the committment clerk for the
office paying for the publication) should sign here.
OSWER Requirements:
«•
The Office Director and the Assistant Administrator are also required to sign
all Federal Register typesetting requests.
-------
GOVERNMENT P R ; N T , N C
FEDERAL REGISTER TYPESETTING REQUEST
1 TITLE
Requestor Complete items _
8, 9. 10. 11. 12 and 13 Retain
copy number 7 and submit the
balance with manuscript copy to
the Up Federal Register Office
HQ Federal Register Office Com-
ole/te items 3. 4, 5 and 6 Retain
copy number 6 and submit balance
to Hq Printing Management
2. SUBMITTING ACTIVITY
3 ASSIGNED FRLNUMBER (include alpha it numeric character* lor idtnnrtconon i
4 OPEN REQUISITION NUMBER
5. BILLING CODE
6. FORWARDED TO GSA, NARS - SIGNATURE
DATE
7. NUMBER OF MANUSCRIPT PAGES
8 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF COLUMNS
9 ESTIMATED COST
10. FINANCIAL DATA
FMO USE
(a)
DOCUMENT
CONTROL NO.
(c)
ACCOUNT NO
. la)
OBJECT
CLASS
(e)
AMOUNT If)
DOLLARS
CTS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | 9 |10 11 12 13
15 16 17 18 19 20
31 |32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41:42 43 44
45 46(47(48 49 50|51 52 53 54 55156
lo
11. SIGNATURE, la) REQUESTING OFFICER
12. SIGNATURE. <«) FEDERAL REGISTER DESIGNEE
b) DATE
(e) TELEPHONE NUMBER
(b)DATE
(c) TELEPHONE NUMBER
13. FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE ICommitmm Otrkl
OUST Office Director
OSWER Assistant Administrator
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
SAMPLE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 1990 / Proposed Rules
5861
Rulemaking Review Committee on
January 23,1990, and submitted to OSM
on February 7,1990 (Administrative
Record No. WV 821). OSM is seeking
comments on whether the revised
proposed amendment satisfies the
applicable program approval criteria of
30 CFR 732.15. If approved, the
amendment will become part of the
West Virginia permanent regulatory
program.
Written comments should be specific,
pertain only to the issues proposed in
this rulemaking and include
explanations in support of the
commenter's recommendations.
Comments received after the time
indicated under "DATES" or at
locations other than the OSM
Charleston Field Office will not .
necessarily be considered in the final
rulemaking or included in the
Administrative Record.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948
Coal mining, Intergovernmental
relations, Surface mining, Underground
mining.
Dated: February 13,1990.
Carl C. Close,
Assistant Director, Eastern Field Operations,
[FR Doc. 90-3819 Filed 2-16-90; 8:45 am]
BILUNQ COM 49KM*-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 152
[OPP-36173; FRL 3713-4]
Notification to Secretary of Agriculture
of a Proposed Regulation on Criteria
for Classifying Pesticides for
Restricted-Use Due to Ground Water
Concerns
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notification to the Secretary of
Agriculture.
SUMMARY: Notice is given that the
Administrator of EPA has forwarded to
the Secretary of Agriculture a proposed
regulation under section 25 of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The proposed
rule would add new criteria in 40 CFR
152.170 for selection of pesticide
products as candidates for restricted-use
classification. Pesticide products
classified for restricted-use under
authority of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
section 3(d) may be purchased and used
only by certified pesticide applicators or
individuals under their supervision. This
action is required by section 25(a)(2)(A)
of the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as
amended.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
By mail: David Alexander, Attorney
Advisor, Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone number:
Rm. 1120A, CM#2,1921 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703-
557-0592).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
25(a)(2)(A) of FIFRA provides that the
Administrator shall provide the
Secretary of Agriculture with a copy of
any proposed regulation at least 60 days
prior to signing it for publication in the
Federal Register. If the Secretary
comments in writing regarding the
proposed regulation within 30 days after
receiving it, the Administrator shall
issue for publication in the Federal
Register, with the proposed regulation,
the comments of the Secretary, if
requested by the Secretary, and the
response of the Administrator
concerning the Secretary's comments. If
the Secretary does not comment in
writing within 30 days after receiving
the proposed regulation, the
Administrator may sign the proposed
regulation for publication in the Federal
Register anytime after the 30-day period.
As required by FIFRA section 25(a)(3), a
copy of this proposed regulation has
been forwarded to the Committee on
Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of
the Senate. As required by FIFRA
section 25(d), a copy of this proposed
regulation has also been forwarded to
the Scientific Advisory Panel.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.
Dated: February 12,1990.
Douglas D. Campt,
Director, Off ice of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 90-3613 Filed 2-18-90: 8:45 am]
BILUNQ CODE 6560-SO-O
40 CFR Part 281
[FRL 3725-5]
Mississippi; Approval of State
Underground Storage Tank Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of tentative
determination on Mississippi's
application for final approval, public
hearing, and public comment period.
SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is
to announce that: (1) The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has received a
complete application from the State of
Mississippi requesting final approval of
its underground storage tank (UST)
program under subtitle I of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA); (2) EPA has reviewed
Mississippi's application and has made
the tentative decision that Mississippi's
UST program satisfies all of the
requirements necessary to qualify for
final approval; (3) Mississippi's
application for final approval is now
available for public review and copying;
(4) public comments are requested; and
(5) a public hearing will be held.
DATES: Requests to present oral
testimony should be filed by March 16,
1990. Public hearings will be held on
April 3,1990. Mississippi will participate
in the public hearing held by EPA. The
10:00 a.m. hearing will end at 1:00 p.m.
The 7:00 p.m. hearing will continue until
the end of testimony or 10:00 p.m., /:
whichever comes first. Written ')
comments must be received by April 13,
1990. EPA reserves .the right to cancel
the hearing should there be no
significant public interest. Those
informing EPA of their intention to
testify will be notified of the
cancellation.
ADDRESSES: Comments and requests to
testify should be mailed to John K.
Mason, Chief, Underground Storage
Tank Section, U.S. EPA, Region IV. 345
Courtland Street NJL, Atlanta, Georgia
30365. Copies of Mississippi's final
approval application are available
between 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at the following
locations for inspection and copying:
Mississippi Department of Environment
Quality, 2380 Hwy. 80 West Jackson,
MS 39209, Phone: (601) 961-5142;
U.S. EPA Headquarters, Library, PM
211A, 401 M Street SW., Washington.
DC 20460, Phone: (202) 382-5926;
U.S. EPA Region IV, Ubrary, 1st Floor.
345 Courtland Street N.E., Atlanta,
Georgia 30365, Phone (404) 347-4216.
Two hearings will be held in the
Embassy I Room, Metro Ramada Inn,
Ellis Avenue and Interstate 20 West,
Jackson, Mississippi. The first hearing
will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 1:00
p.m. The second hearing will begin at
7:00 p.m. anorcontinue until all
testimony ends or until 10:00 p.m.,
whichever comes first
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Mason, Chief, Underground
Storage Tank Section. U.S. EPA Region
IV, 345 Courtland St., NE., Atlanta, Ga.
30265. Comments should be sent to this
address. Phone (404) 347-3866.
-------
5862 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 34 / Tuesday. February 20. 1990 / Proposed Rules
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Section 9004 of RCRA authorizes EPA
to approve state UST programs to
operate in the State in lieu of the Federal
UST program. Two types of approval
may be granted. The first type, known
as "interim approval", is a temporary
approval which is granted if EPA
determines that the state UST program
is "no less stringent" than the Federal
program (section (9004)(b), 42 U.S.C.
6926{c]) in the following elements:
corrective action, financial
responsibility, and new tank standards.
While operating under interim approval,
the State may complete the development
of "no less stringent" standards for the
following elements: release detection.
release detection recordkeeping, release
reporting, corrective action, and tank
closure.
The second type of approval is a
"final approval" that is granted if EPA
determines that the State program: [1] Is
"no less stringent" than the Federal UST
program in all the following elements:
corrective action, financial
responsibility, new tank standards,
release detection, release detection
record reporting, tank closure, .
notification requirements of section
9004(a)(8); and (2) provides for adequate
enforcement of compliance with UST
standards (section 9004(a), 42 U.S.C
6926(b)). EPA will consider all public
comments on its tentative determination
received at the hearing or during public
comment period.
Issues raised by those comments may
be the basis for a decision to deny final
approval to Mississippi. EPA expects to
make a final decision on whether or not
to approve Mississippi's program within
sixty (60) days after the date of the
public hearing and will give notice of it
in the Federal Register. The notice will
include a summary of the reasons for the
final determination and a response to all
major comments.
B. Mississippi
EPA has reviewed Mississippi's
application, and has tentatively
determined that the State's program
meets all of the requirements necessary
to qualify for final approval. ,
Consequently, EPA intends to grant final
approval to Mississippi to operate its
program.
The Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality, through the
Ground water Division of the Bureau of
Pollution Control, is dedicating a
substantial effort to remediate, prevent,
and control UST-related groundwater
contamination under the Mississippi
UST (MUST) Act of 1988. The MUST
Act provided for the following:
(1) The Mississippi Groundwater
Protection Trust Fund, to provide for
contaminated site investigation,
assessment, rehabilitation, and potable
water supply restoration or replacement.
An environmental protection fee of two
tenths of one cent per gallon levied on
every bonded distributor who sells or
delivers motor fuels to a retailer in the
State is the source of the trust fund.
(2) State authority to promulgate UST
rules and regulations. The Federal UST
technical and financial responsibility
regulation of 40 CFR part 280 were
adopted by reference.
(3} The assessment of a tank
registration fee. The tank registration fee
is the funding source for the
administrative part of the State UST
program.
(4) State authority to conduct UST-
related compliance monitoring and
enforcement activities.
(5) A provision to allow the State to
take timely and effective corrective
action.
(6) The authority for the State to
access the Mississippi Pollution
Emergency Fund to aid the State in
taking timely and effective corrective
action.
(7) A requirement to certify all tank
installers, removers and repairers active
within the State.
Compliance With Executive Order 12291
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
Certification Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605{b), I hereby
certify that this approval will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Approval of Mississippi's UST program
effectively suspends the applicability of
the Federal UST regulations, thereby
eliminating duplicative requirements for
owners and operators of underground
.storage tanks in the State. Consequently.
it does not impose any new burdens on
small entities. This rule, therefore, does
not require a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281
Administrative practice and
procedure. Hazardous material, State
program approval, and Underground
storage tanks.
Authority. This notice is issued under the
authority of section 9004 of die Solid Waste
Disposal Waste Act as amended, 42 U.S.C.
6912(8). 6028, 60740).
Joseph R. rtanzmathet,
Acting Regional Administrator
[FR Doc. 90-3815 Filed 2-16-90; 8:45 am]
BIUIMO coot »MO ae •
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
'Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 29
[OST Docket No. 62; Notice 90-5]
RtN 2105-AA08
Consolidation of Grants to United
States Insular Areas
AGENCY: Department of Transportation,
Office of the Secretary.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking:
withdrawal. ' ij
SUMMARY: This action withdraws a
proposal of the Department of
Transportation (DOT) to consolidate six
grant programs that currently provide
financial assistance to United States
insular areas. The change would have
implemented title V of Public Law 95-
134. The Department has concluded
the proposed rule would not necessa
increase the efficiency of the grant-
making procedures at the Federal and
local levels and is, therefore,
withdrawing the proposal.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 20,1990.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher Bertram, Office of Programs
and Budget, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590, (202) 36&-96B9.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 8,1979, the Office of the
Secretary of the Department of
Transportation (DOT) published a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (44 FR
1765) proposing to implement title V of
Public Law 95-134, which permits
Departments and agencies to
consolidate grant programs, reduce
reporting requirements, and waive local
matching fund requirements* The
Department received two comments in
response to the NPRM. These were from
the Mariana Island Airport Authority
and the Guam Airport Authority. Both
comments responded negatively to the
NPRM. The comments mainly criticized
the NPRM for consolidating the Airport
Development Aid Program (ADAP)
administered by the Federal Aviatio
Administration (FAA) within the si
programs proposed and making the
Federal Highway Administration the
responsible agency. The comments
-------
Federal Register / Voi 55. No. 63 / Monday. April 2, 1990 / PrapoMd
prior to the effective date of 30 CFR part
7 subpart D." Tins wtmai enable mine
operators to continue to safely use
blasting marts already accepted far tiae
by the Agency. This acceptance could
have been granted under an interim
criteria issued for a large capacity
blasting unit or through an evaluation
which determined a particular unit to be
as safe for use as an approved unit.
Executive Order 12291 and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule would revise
previously issued methane standards to
allow mine operators to use any MSHA
approved multiple-shot blasting unit
without regard to the specific approval
part under which U was issued and
deletes certain performance
requirements which are the-same as
those required for approval of blasting
units by part 7 subpart D. There is no
cost impact of this proposed revision on
mine operators. The cos! impact of the
testing and approval requirements has
been analyzed in the context of subpart
D of part 7 in which the Agency has
determined that the rule would not
result in a major cost increase or .have
an incremental effect of $100 million or
more on the economy. Therefore, a
regulatory impact analysis is not
required. The Agency has also
determined that the final rule would not
have a significant impact on a
substantial nnmber of small entities.
Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposal does net contain any
information cottecb'an requirements
subject to the Paperwork Redaction Act
of 1980.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 57
Mine safety and health, metal and
nonmetai mining, safety standards for
methane.
Dated: March 26.1990.
John B. Howerton.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for & fine Safety
and Health.
Accordingly, subpart T. part 57.
subchapter N. chapter 1. title 30 of the
Code of Federal Regulation* is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 57—(AMENDED]
The authority citation for «tibpartT«f
part 57 continue* to read as follows:
Authority: 30 ILS.C. 811.
2. Section 57.22606 is proposed to be
amended fay revising paragraphs (a) and
(g) to read as follows:
J57.2M06 Exptaah*
blasting units
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 112 / Monday, June 11. 1990 / Rules and Regulations 2354t»
action is consistent with the letter and
spirit of the SIP, when read in
conjunction with the Clean Air Act and
EPA's regulations. EPA betieves that die
language hi question in the September 1,
1989, notice, aa clarified here, accurately
describes the legal relationship between
EPA and the Commonwealth of
Kentucky with respect to the NSR
program.
Under 5 U.S.C. 605{b), I certify that
this notice will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
List of Subjects in 4O CFR Part 52
Air pollution control
Intergovernmental relations.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.
Dated: May 31.1990.
F. Henry Habichi.
Acting Adm'nJBtrator.
(FR Doe. 90-13432 Filed A-B-40; 8:45 cm}
40 CFR Part 281
Mississippi; Final Approval of State
Underground Storage Tank Program
AOENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of final determination on
Mississippi's application for final
approval
SUMMARY: The State of Mississippi has
applied for final approval of its
underground storage tank program
under Subtitle I of the Resource and
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has reviewed
Mississippi's application and has
reached a final determination that
Mississippi's underground storage tank
program satisfies all the requirements
necessary to qualify for final approval.
Thus, EPA is granting final approval to
the State of Mississippi to operate its
program.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Final approval for
Mississippi shall be effective July 11,
1990.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
John K. Mason, Chief. Underground
Storage Tank Section, U.S. EPA, Region
IV, 345 Courtland Street NE., Atlanta,
Georgia 30385. 404/347-3866.
SUPPlfMCNTARY INFORMATION: .
A. Background
Section 9004 of RCRA enables EPA to
approve state underground storage tank
programs to operate in a state in lien of
the federal underground storage tank
program. To qualify for final
authorization, a state's program must
(1) Be "no less stringent" than the
federal program, and (27 provide for
adequate enforcement (section 9004(a)
of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 692B(B)).
On October 2, 1989, EPA
acknowledged receiving from the State
of Mississippi a completed official
application to obtain final approval to
administer its underground storage tank
program. On February 20, 1900, EPA
published a tentative decision
announcing its intent to grant
Mississippi final approval of its
program. Further background on the
tentative decision to grant approval
appears at 59 FR 5861, February 20, 1990,
Along with the tentative
determination, EPA announced the
availability of die application for public
comment and the date of a public
hearing on the application. EPA
requested advance notice for testimony
and reserved the right to cancel for lack
of public interest. Since there was no
public request the- puftfic bearing was
cancelled. No public
received regarding EPA's approval of
Mississippi's underground storage tank
program.
B. Decision
I conclude that the State of
Mississippi's application for final
approval meets ail of the statutory and
regulatory requirements established by
Subtitle I of RCRA. Accordingly,
Mississippi is granted final approval to
operate its underground storage tank
program. The State of Mississippi now
has the responsibility for managing all
regulated underground storage tank
facilities within its borders and carrying
out all aspects of the federal
underground storage tank program
except with regard to Indian lands
where EPA will have regulatory
authority. Mississippi also has primary
enforcement responsibility, although
EPA retains the right to conduct
enforcement actions under section 9006
of RCRA.
Compliance witii Executive Order 12291
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
Certification Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that this approval
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This approval effectively
suspends the applicability of certain
federal regulations in favor of the State
of Mississippi's program, thereby
eliminating applicative requirements for
owners and operators of underground
storage tanks within the State. It does
not impose any new burdens on small
entities. This rule, therefore, does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281
Administrative practice and
procedure, Hazardous materials, State
program approval and underground
storage tanks.
Authority, section 9004 of the Solid Waste
Dispotal Act as amended. 42 U.S.C. 6912(a),
6974(b), and 6991(c).
Dated: April 27,1990.
Greer C Tidwefi,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 90-13440 Filed 6-8-90; 8:45 am]
BILLHW CODE (MO-iO-M •
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and WHdfrfe Service
50CFR-Part33
Refuge Specific Rshlng Regulations
CFR Correction
In title 50 of the Code o! Federal
Regulations, parts 1 to 199, revised as of
October 1.1989, on page 481 paragraphs
(a)(l) and (2) and (b) were incorrectly
removed from { 33.53. Section 33.53 was
added at 50 FR 29964. July 23,1985, and
amended at 53 FR 1491, January 20.1988.
The entire text of paragraphs (a) and (b)
of 9 33.53 reads as follows:
§33.53 Wisconsin.
(a) Horicon National Wildlife Refuge.
Fishing is permitted on designated areas
of the refuge subject to the following
conditions:
(1) Fishing is permitted from April 15
through September 15.
(2) Only bank fishing is permitted.
(b) Necedah National Wildlife
Refuge. Fishing is permitted on
designated areas of the refuge subject to
the following conditions:
(1) Fishing is permitted only in
Sprague and Goose Pools including their
outlets as far south as Sprague-Mather
Road.
-------
38064 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 180 / Monday. September 17, 1990 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: August 28.1990.
Don. R. Clay,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response.
[PR Doc. 90-21894 Filed 9-14-90: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE «W-S£M»
40 CFR Part 281
[FRL-M31-3J
New Mexico: Final Approval of State
Underground Storage Tank Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of final determination of
State of New Mexico Application for
Final Approval.
SUMMARY: The State of New Mexico has
applied for final approval of its
underground storage tank program
under subtitle I of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has reviewed the New
Mexico application and determined,
subject to public review and comment
that the New Mexico underground
storage tank program satisfies ail of the
requirements necessary to qualify for
final approval Thus, EPA is granting
approval to the State to operate its
program unless advene public comment
shows the need for further review. The
New Mexico application for final
approval is available SOT public review
and comment
DATES: Final authorization for the New
Mexico underground storage tank
program shall be effective at 1 p.m. on
November 18.1990 unless EPA publishes
a prior Federal Register action
withdrawing this final rule. All
comments on the New Mexico final
approval application must be received
by the close of business on October 17,
1990.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the New Mexico
final approval application are available
during the hours between 8 a.m. and 5
p.m. at the following addresses for
inspection and copying: Environmental
Improvement Division, Harold Runnels
Building. 1190 St Francis Drive, Santa
Fe. New Mexico 87503, Phone: 505/827-
3982; U.S. EPA Headquarters Library.
PM211A, 401 M Street SW, Washington.
DC 20460, Phone: 202/382-5926; and U.S.
EPA Region 6 Library, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas. Texas 75202, Phone:
214/655-6755. Written comments should
be sent to Program Manager,
Underground Storage Tank Program,
Attention William Rhea. Region 6.1445
Ross Avenue. Dallas, Texas 75202.
Phone 214/ 655-6755.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
New Mexico State Progam Officer.
Underground Storage Tank Program.
Attention James Duck, U.S. EPA Region
6, Dallas. Texas 75202. Phone: 214/655-
6755.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Section 9004 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
enables EPA to approve State
underground storage tank programs to
operate in the State in lieu of the Federal
underground storage tank (UST)
program. To qualify for final
authorization, a State's program must:
(I) Be "no less stringent" than the
Federal program; and (2) provide for
adequate enforcement (sections 9004(a)
and 9004{b) of RCRA. 42 U.S.C.
6991c(b)).
On September 25,1989. the State of
New Mexico submitted an official
application for final approval. Prior to
its submission, the State of New Mexico
provided an opportunity for public
notice and comment in the development
of its underground storage tank program
as required under S 28L50S(b). The EPA
review of the application determined
that existing State regulations
establishing June 1,2008. as the
regulatory deadline for upgrading of
existing underground storage tanks
could not be found to be no less
stringent than'(be Federal requirements
found at 40 CFR 28L31. Subsequent to
notification of this Ending, on March B.
1990. the State, following a public
comment period and a public hearing on
the proposal, repealed all State UST
regulations pertaining to new tank
standards, general operating
requirements, release detection, release
reporting, response and corrective
action, tank closure and financial
responsibility. The State then adopted
by reference Hie corresponding Federal
UST regulations which became fully
effective on Jury 26.1990. On Jury t,
1990, EPA received an amended
application from the State reflecting the
adoption of the Federal regulations by
reference as State regulations.
B. Decision
After reviewing the amended New
Mexico application, I conclude dial the
State's program meets all of the
requirements necessary to qualify for
final approval Accordingly, the State of
New Mexico is granted final approval to
operate its underground storage tank
program. The State of New Mexico now
has the responsibility for «««nygiqg
underground storage tank facilities
within its borders and carrying oat all
aspects of the UST program. The State
of New Mexico also has primary
enforcement responsibility, although
EPA retains the right to conduct
inspections under section 9005 of RCRA
U.S.C. 6991d and to take enforcement
actions under section 9006 of RCRA
U.S.C. 6991e.
The State of New Mexico is not
authorized to operate the UST program
on Indian lands and this authority will
remain with EPA.
Compliance With Executive Order 12291
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
Certification Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), 1 hereby certify that this approval
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The approval effectively
suspends the applicability of certain
Federal regulations.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281
Administrative practice and
procedure. Hazardous materials, State
program approval. Underground storage
Tanks.
Ati&ority.Thi* notice MiMued«oder the
authority of we*. ZOOZ(«). TOMfb), «od SttM of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42
U.S.C. «912(a). 6020.69741b).
Dated: August 2L1890.
JoeaWinkk.
Acting Regional Admiuisiraiar.
[FR Doc. 90-21895 Filed »-14-«t «*S anj
BtlUMtt CODE HM 60 •
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parti
[GWI.OM.W-2M]
FeeCoflc
AOEMCY: Federal f*-/MPi^i
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY: This document corrects a
final rule (55 FR 19148. May & 1090]
relating to the procedures for
implementation of a fee collection
program under 47 U.S.C. 138 (1989J. The
final rules were adopted to implement
changes in that program under the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1961
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 17,1BBO.
-------
16276 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 77 / Monday, April 22. 1991 / Rules and RegBJstfcuM
Today's Action
The EPA is. by this notice, identifying
for the public those PM-10, SOj, and
lead areas for which EPA has notified
the affected States that EPA believes the
area should be designated or the
designation should be revised to
nonattairunent or undassifiable. Upon
receipt of responses by the governors of
the affected States, EPA will review the
submitted information and conduct
appropriate rulemaking, at which time
the public will have additional
opportunity for review and comment.1
list of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, Lead, Participate
matter, Sulfur dioxide.
Authority: Section* 107(d). 110 and 301 (a)
of the Clean Air Act as amended.
Dated: April 15, 1901.
Michael Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
Table I.— PAf-10 Designations
[Area* for which EPA has recently notified the
affected State that EPA believes the area should
be redesignaied as Donattainmeat for PM-WJ
Bullhead City.
Sea Bemexdfno Coonty.
Colorado Stseatboet Bprioas.
Idaho.... - Kootenai Coarrty.
nilnoii Edgar County, Hunter ami
Straiten twpe. •
Ls Belle Comity, Two. J3K/
Range JE/Secifca 36.
Mkhigan , Bey County
Miftmiri St Lfluit County
Montana Tlminiitiiii FaHa
New Mexico BenaliBe Coaatp.
NewYnrk _ New Ynsfc Comfy.
°~»on Oskridge.
Washington Benton County.
West Virginia City of Wfertvn.
• Based on PM-10 NAAQS vtoktUene Measured
on or after January l, MSB.
TABLE n
[Areas tor which EPA nee recant* noMad Use
atlected Stales that EPA beeoves the area should
be rsdesignated as nonattainment tor SO.I
rtwHUf StCOCMJaVy'
State and counties standard standard
exceeded exceeded
Iowa:
CHntonCo. _. X X
Illinois:
Madison Co. X X
Stela* Co. X X
» Pursuant to section 107(dH2)(B) of Ike Act. th*
promulgation of the lead designations is not (object
farnattce-ead-ceauneBt miniating f*U&C.H»-
557). However, es e matter of public polk* HP*
may niiMTf+ to provide such ntrttne and coBuneol OK
other oDDOrtunftr for nublic review.
TABLE It— Continued
[Areas tor which EPA ha* ncenlhr notified fte
affected State* thai EPA beeevee fee are* show*
be redesignaied as nonattainment for SOJ
State and counties
Michigan:
Wayne Co.
Ohio:
Butler Co.- -
Hamilton Co
Oklahoma:
Kay Co.
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny Co.
Warren Go
Texas:
Herns Co. —
JefferacnCa ~
Wisconsin:
Douglas Co —
District of Columbia
Primary
— . -- j
sianowv
aKceoded
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Secondary
rocosderJ
X
X
X
X
X
TABLE III.— LEAD DESIGNATIONS
[Areas EPA beftevee shot** be designated
nonattaincneotand yndassitiaUe to teed}
State and counties
Alabama;
PMCtt,..™.. „„, ,
CaNfomla):
Florida:
HHiomuunh Co
Georgia:
Muscogee Co.
Marion Ca —- — ~
Louisiana:
East Baton ROUQO
Jeffaraun Co. -
HflffOm
Deet<^
Minoaeota:
OaMaCo,.
Montanr
LawialCMkOK
Nebraska:
Pr»rJae'"X>
NewYonc
Orange Co
OoondaQs Co. .«.«*»«.
Ohkr
Oftttii CD
Tonneesee:
ShefjyCa
Fayette Co.— —...._ ..
Williamson Co
CoMnCa
stancanto
exceeded
x
X
X
X
X
X
- x
X
X
X
X
x
Cannot De-
classified
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
V
X
X
[FR Doc. 91-0309 FQed 4-19-01; 8:45 ami
Biuina coot naa so n
[FRL-W23-7}
New rtampeMre; Approval of Stale
Underground Storage Tank Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Tentative
Determination on Application of New
Hampshire for Final Approval, Public
Hearing, and Public Comment Period.
SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice ia
to announce that (1) The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has received a
complete application from the State of
New Hampshire requesting final
approval of its underground storage tank
(UST) program under subtitle I of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA); (2) EPA has reviewed New
Hampshire's application and has made
the tentative decision that New
Hampshire's UST program satisfies all
of the requirements necessary to qualify
for final approval; (3) New Hampshire's
application for final approval is now
available for public review and copying;
(4) public comments are requested; and
(5) a public hearing will be held to solicit
comments on the application, if
requested.
MTH; A pubfic bearing- is scheduled
May 23,1991. The State of New .
HaraptUn will partkapate in the pubfi
hearing held by EPA. The hearing wfll
begin at 10 c.n. and wiB continue until
the end of testamnyorl pja..
whichever cornea first Requests to
present oral testimony must be filed by
May 17, Mttt. Written consent most be
received by May 2X1WL EPA reserve*
the right to cancel the hearing should
there be no f^AKrtmt public interest.
Those informing EPA of their intention
to testify will be notified of the
cancellation.
ADDMSSes: Comments and requests to
testify should be mailed to Susan
Hanamoto, Underground Storage Tank
Program. HPU-1. U.S. EPA. Region I JFK
Federal Bnildmg. Boston, MA 02203.
Copies of New Hampshire's final
application for program approval are
available 0 a.m.-4 pan, Monday through
Friday, at the following locations for
review.
New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services, 6 Hazen
Drive. Concord, NH 08382, Phone:
(603)271-3«44;
U.S. EPA Headquarters. library, room
211A. 401M Street, Washington, DC
20460* Phone: (202) 382-5926;
-------
Federal Register / Vol.' 56, No. 77 / Monday, April 22. 1991 / Rules and Bjegaktiont 16277
U.S. EPA. Region L Library llth Floor. 1
Congress Street, Boston, MA 02203,
Phone: (617) 565-3300.
EPA and New Hampshire will hold
the public hearing on May 23,1991 in
room 112. Health & Welfare Building, 6
Hazen Drive, Concord, NH. The hearing
will begin at 10 a.m. and wifl continue
until the end of testimony or 1 pan.,
whichever comes first.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan L Hanamoto HPU-1,
Underground Storage Tank Program,
U.S. EPA, Region I, JFK Federal Building,
Boston, MA 02203. Comments should be
sent to this address. Phone: (617] 573-
5748.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Section 9004 of RCRA authorizes EPA
to approve state UST programs to
operate in the State in lieu of die Federal
UST program. Two types of approval
may be granted. The first type, known
as "interim approval" n a temporary
approval which is granted if EPA
determines that the state UST program
is "no less stringent" than the Federal
program (section 9004(b), 42 U.S.C.
6991c(b)) in the following elements:
corrective action, financial
responsibility, and new tank standards.
While operating under interim approval,
the State may complete the development
of "no less stringent" standards for the
following elements: Release detection,
release detection recordkeepmg, release
reporting, corrective action, and tank
closure.
The second type of approval is a
"final approval" that is granted if EPA
determines that the State program: (1] fe
"no less stringent" than the Federal UST
program in all the following elements:
corrective action, financial
responsibility, new tank standards;
release detection, release detection
recordkeeping, release reporting,
corrective action, tank closure, and
notification requirements of section
9004(a)(8), 42 U.S.C. 6991c(aH8); and (2)
provides for adequate enforcement of
compliance with UST standards (section
9004(a). 42 U.S.C. 6991c(aJ).
B. New Hampshire
On December 29,1989. the State of
new Hampshire submitted a draft
application for program approval The
State decided to further amend their
UST rules and to also include rales
implementing administrative fines for
violations of the UST rates. The puttie
notice requested comments on the
amendments and administrative fine
rules, stated the date for (he public
hearing, and included the State's intent
for seeking final program approval. The
public bearing was held on February 8,
1990, and die amended UST rules
became effective on November 2, 1990.
On December 19. 1980, New
Hampshire submitted an official
application for final approval. Prior to
its submission, New Hampshire
provided an opportunity for public
notice and comment in the development
of its underground storage tank program.
This is required under 40 CFR 281.50(b).
EPA has reviewed New Hampshire's
application, and has tentatively
determined that the State's program
meets all of the requirements necessary
to qualify for final approval.
Consequently, EPA intends to grant final
approval to New Hampshire to operate
its program.
In accordance with section 9004 of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c and 40 CFR
281.50(e), me Agency will hold a public
hearing on its tentative decision on May
23, 1991, in Concord, New Hampshire,
from YO a.m.-l p.m. The public may also
submit written comments on EPA's
tentative determination until May 23,
1991. Copies of New Hampshire's
application are available for inspection
and copying at the locations indicated in
the "ADDRESSES" section of this notice.
The New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services, through the
Water Supply and Pollution Control
Division is dedicating a substantial
effort to prevent remediate, and manage
UST-related groundw&ter contamination
under chapter 146-C, the Underground
Storage Facilities statute and chapter
146-D, the Oil Discharge and Disposal
Cleanup Fund statute.
Chapter 146-C provides for the
following:
(1) Authority to adopt UST rales.
Existing UST rules were amended to
become "no less stringent" than die
Federal UST regulations of 40 CFR part
280.
(2) The assessment of a tank permit
fee(RSA!46-C:4).
(3J Authority to impose administrative
fines for violatioas of any provision of
the statute fRSA M6-Cn0-a).
(4) Authority to conduct UST related
compliance monitoring and enforcement
activities (RSA 146-0:10).
(5) Strict liability for owners and
operators for corrective action (RSA
Chapter 146-D provides for ftie
following:
(1) Financial responsibility for the
cleanup of oil discharge and disposal
(RSA 146-DaB).
(2) Financial assistance to owners of
underground storage tanks through
reimbursement for cleanup of oil
discharge and disposal and third party
damages {RSA 146-D-.6).
EPA wiD consider all public comments
on its tentative determination received
during the public comment period or at
the hearing. Issues raised by those
comments may be the basis for a
decision to deny final approval to New
Hampshire. EPA expects to make a final
decision on whether or not to approve
New Hampshire's program within sixty
(60) days after the date of the public
hearing and will give notice of it in the
Federal Register. The notice will include
a summary of the reasons for the final
determination and a response to all
major comments.
Compliance With Executive Order 12291
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
Certification Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). I hereby
certify that this approval will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Approval of New Hampshire's UST
program effectively suspends the
applicability of the Federal UST
regulations, thereby eliminating
duplicative requirements for owners and
operators of underground storage tanks
in the State. Consequently, it does not
impose any new burdens on small
entities. This rule, therefore, does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281
Administrative practice and
procedure, Hazardous material. State
program approval. Underground storage
tanks.
Authority: This notice ii iasned under the
authority of section 9094 ef the Sohd Waste
Disposal Act at amended. 42 U.S.C 6991 c.
Stephen S. Perkins,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 91-9368 Filed 4-19-41; 8:45 am]
BILLWaCODEI
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Public Land Order 6848
[CA-940-4214-1Q; GALA O1S7642WR]
Revocation of Public Land Order No.
1655; California
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
APPENDIX C
APPROVAL DETERMINATIONS
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
Tentative Determination To Approve
(Model Federal Register Notice)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 281
(Insert name of State); Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank
Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
ACTION: Notice of Tentative Determination on Application of State X for
Final Approval, Public Hearing and Public Comment Period.
SUMMARY: State X has applied for final approval of its underground storage
tank program under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed State X's
application and has made the tentative decision that State X's underground
storage tank program satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify
for final approval. Thus, EPA intends to grant final approval to the State to
operate its program in lieu of the Federal program. State X's application for
final approval is available for public review and comment and a public hearing
will be held to solicit comments on the application, if requested.
DATES: A public hearing is scheduled for (insert date of hearing, at least 30
calendar days after date of publication in FR). State X will participate in
the public hearing held by EPA on this subject. All comments on State X's
final approval application must be received by the close of business on
(insert date at least 30 calendar days after date of publication in FR).
ADDRESSES: Copies of State X's final approval application are available
during (insert business hours) at the following addresses for inspection and
copying: (insert appropriate State addresses); U.S. EPA Headquarters Library,
PM 211A, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, Phone: 202/382-5926; and
U.S. EPA Region (insert Region number), Library, (insert the address, phone
number, and contact). Written comments should be sent to (insert name,
address, and phone number of Regional contact). EPA will hold the public
hearing on (insert date, time, and location of hearing).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (Insert name, address, and phone number of
the appropriate Regional contact.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Section 9004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
enables EPA to approve State underground storage tank programs to operate in
C-l
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
the State in lieu of the Federal underground storage tank (UST) program.
Program approval is granted by EPA if the Agency finds that the State program:
(1) is "no less stringent" than the Federal program in all seven elements, and
includes notification requirements of section 9004(a)(8), 42 U.S.C.
6991c(a)(8); and (2) provides for adequate enforcement of compliance with UST
standards (Section 9004(a), 42 U.S.C. 6991c(a)).
B. State X
(Insert paragraph briefly describing the State's approval history prior to
submission of the "official" application.)
On , State X submitted an official application for final approval.
Prior to its submission, State X provided an opportunity for public notice and
comment in the development of its underground storage tank program. This is
required under §281.50(b). EPA has reviewed State X's application, and has
tentatively determined that the State's program meets all of the requirements
necessary to qualify for final approval. Consequently, EPA intends to grant
final approval to State X to operate its program in lieu of the Federal
program.
In accordance with Section 9004 of RCRA 42 U.S.C. 6991c and 40 CFR
281.50(e), the Agency will hold a public hearing on its tentative decision on
(insert date of hearing, at least 30 calendar days after date of publication
in FR) at (insert time and location of hearing). The public may also submit
written comments on EPA's tentative determination until (insert date at least
30 calendar days after date of publication in FR). Copies of State X's
application are available for inspection and copying at the location indicated
in the "Addresses" section of this notice.
(You may wish to insert a paragraph here that directs the public's attention
to certain issues.)
EPA will consider all public comments on its tentative determination
received at the hearing or during the public comment period. Issues raised by
those comments may be the basis for a decision to deny final approval to State
X. EPA expects to make a final decision on whether or not to approve State
X's program by [insert date 90 calendar days after date of publication in FR]
and will give notice of it in the FEDERAL REGISTER. The notice will include a
summary of the reasons for the final determination and a response to all major
comments.
COMPLIANCE WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER 12291: The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the requirements of Section 3 of Executive Order
12291.
CERTIFICATION UNDER THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT: Pursuant to the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that this approval will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The approval effectively suspends the applicability of certain Federal
C-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
regulations in favor of State X's program, thereby eliminating duplicative
requirements for owners and operators of underground storage tanks in the
State. It does not impose any new burdens on small entities. This rule,
therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 40 CFR PART 281: Administrative Practice and Procedure,
Hazardous Materials, State Program Approval, and Underground Storage Tanks.
AUTHORITY: This notice is issued under the authority of Section 9004 of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6991c.
Regional Administrator
Dated:
C-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
Final Determination To Approve
(Model Federal Register Notice)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR PART 281
(Insert name of State); Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank
Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
ACTION: Notice of Final Determination on State X's Application for Final
Approval.
SUMMARY: State X has applied for final approval of its underground storage
tank program under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed State X's
application and has reached a final determination that State X's underground
storage tank program satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify
for final approval. Thus, EPA is granting final approval to State X to
operate its program.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Final approval for State X shall be effective at 1:00 pm
Eastern Time on [insert date 30 days after the date of publication in the
FEDERAL REGISTER].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (Insert name, address, and phone number of
the appropriate Regional contact.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Section 9004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
enables the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve State underground
storage tank programs to operate in the State in lieu of the Federal
underground storage tank program. To qualify for final authorization, a
State's program must: (1) be "no less stringent" than the Federal program;
and (2) provide for adequate enforcement (Sections 9004(a) and 9004(b) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c(b)).
On (insert date), State X submitted an official application to obtain
final approval to administer the underground storage tank program. On (insert
date), EPA published a tentative decision announcing its intent to grant State
X final approval. Further background on the tentative decision to grant
approval appears at FR , (insert date).
C-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
Along with the tentative determination EPA announced the availability of
the application for public comment and the date of a public hearing on the
application. The public hearing was held on (insert date of public hearing).
(Insert discussion on public comments received and the response to those
comments. Additionally, in the case of a tentative decision requiring a State
to make changes in order to be approved, insert discussion of the needed
changes for approval and what the State agreed to do to be approved.)
(Insert discussion of any different or additional procedural steps during the
approval process. For example, the State may have held an additional public
hearing on a portion of its program which was substantially modified
subsequent to the initial State public hearing.)
(Insert discussion which describes any major portions of the State's program
which are not part of the underground storage tank program; e.g., any major
State requirements that are broader in scope than Federal requirements.)
(Insert a discussion of any portion of the UST program that will continue to
be regulated by EPA as a result of partial program approval or unregulated
segments of the tank universe.)
(Insert a statement as to whether or not the State is being approved to
operate the underground storage tank program on Indian lands.)
B. Decision
After reviewing the public comments and the changes the State has made
to its application and program since the tentative decision, I conclude that
State X's application for final approval meets all of the statutory and
regulatory requirements established by Subtitle I of RCRA. Accordingly, State
X is granted final approval to operate its underground storage tank program.
State X now has the responsibility for managing underground storage tank
facilities within its borders and carrying out all aspects of the UST program
except [note any areas where EPA will have continued regulatory authority].
State X also has primary enforcement responsibility, although EPA retains the
right to conduct inspections under Section 9005 of RCRA 42 U.S.C. 6991d and to
take enforcement actions under Section 9006 of RCRA 42 U.S.C. 6991e.
COMPLIANCE WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER 12291: The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the requirements of Section 3 of Executive Order
12291.
CERTIFICATION UNDER THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT: Pursuant to the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that this approval will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This approval effectively suspends the applicability of certain Federal
regulations in favor of State X's program, thereby eliminating duplicative
requirements for owners and operators of underground storage tanks in the
C-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
State. It does not impose any new burdens on small entities. This rule,
therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 40 CFR PART 281: Administrative Practice and Procedure,
Hazardous Materials, State Program Approval and Underground Storage Tanks.
AUTHORITY: This notice is issued under the authority of Section 2002(a),
7004(b), and 9004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C.
6912(a), 6974(b), and6991c.
Regional Administrator
Dated:
C-6
-------
APPENDIX D
CODIFICATION OF APPROVED STATE PROGRAMS
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
Proposed/Final Codification Notice
Codifying Initial Program Approvals
(Model Federal Register Notice)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 282
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM: CODIFICATION OF APPROVED STATE UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANK PROGRAM FOR [insert name of State]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
ACTION: Proposed/Final Rule
SUMMARY: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended
(RCRA), authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to grant
approval to States to operate their underground storage tank programs in lieu
of the Federal program. 40 CFR Part 282 codifies EPA's prior approval of
State programs and incorporates by reference those provisions of the State
statutes and regulations that will be subject to EPA's inspection and
enforcement authorities under Sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991d
and 6991e. This [[proposal is to codify] or [rule codifies]] in Part 282 the
approved underground storage tank program of [insert name of State], which EPA
approved on [insert date approval was granted in Federal Register].
DATES: [For proposed rule: Comments on the proposed codification of [insert
State name] approved underground storage tank program must be received by the
close of business [insert date 30 days after publication]]. [For final rule:
The qpdification is effective [insert date 30 days after publication]. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register, as of , in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a). Copies may be inspected at [insert the name of the
agency and address] or at the Office of the Federal Register, 1100 L Street,
NW., Room 8401, Washington, DC.
[ADDRESSES: For proposed rule: Written comments should be sent to [insert
name, address, and telephone number of the appropriate Regional contact]].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [Insert name, address, and telephone number
of the appropriate Regional contact].
D-l
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 9004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as
amended, (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6991c, allows the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to approve State underground storage tank programs to operate in
the State in lieu of the Federal underground storage tank program. On [insert
date of final determination], EPA published a Federal Register notice
announcing its decision to grant approval to [insert State name]. See
FR . Approval was effective on .
EPA codifies its approval of State programs in Part 282 of Title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and incorporates by reference therein the
State statutes and regulations that will be subject to EPA's inspection and
enforcement authorities under Sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991d
and 6991e. Today's [proposed] codification reflects the State program in
effect at the time EPA granted [insert State name] approval under Section
9004(a), 42 U.S.C. 6991c(a) for its underground storage tank program.
This effort provides clear notice to the public of the scope of the
approved program in each State. Revisions to State underground storage tank
programs are necessary when Federal statutory or regulatory authority is
modified. By codifying the approved [insert State name] program and by
amending the Code of Federal Regulations whenever a new or different set of
requirements is approved in [insert State name], the status of Federally
approved requirements of the [insert State name] program will be readily
discernible.
The Agency will only codify for enforcement purposes those provisions of
the [insert State name] underground storage tank program for which approval
has been granted by EPA.
To codify the [insert State name] approved underground storage tank
program, EPA [[proposes to add] or [has added]] Subpart [ ] to Part 282 of
Title 40 of the CFR. Subpart [ ] has previously been reserved for [insert
State name]. [[As proposed, section, or [Section]] 282. [[will codify for
enforcement purposes or [codifies for enforcement purposes]] the State
statutes and regulations. Section, or [Section]] 282. [[will codify or
[codifies]] the Memorandum of Agreement, the Attorney General's Statement and
the Program Description which are approved as part of the underground storage
tank program under Subtitle I of RCRA.]
The Agency retains the authority under Sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA,
42 U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e, to undertake inspections and enforcement actions in
approved States. With respect to such an enforcement action, the Agency will
rely on Federal sanctions, Federal inspection authorities and Federal
procedures, rather than the State authorized analogs to these provisions.
Therefore, the Agency will not codify for purposes of enforcement such
particular, approved [insert State name] enforcement authorities. [S]ection
D-2
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
282 lists those approved [insert State name] authorities that would fall
into this category.
The public also needs to be aware that some provisions of the State's
underground storage tank program are not part of the Federally approved State
program. These non-approved provisions are not part of the RCRA Subtitle I
program because they are "broader in scope" than Subtitle I of RCRA. See 40
CFR §281.12(a)(3)(ii). As a result, State provisions which are "broader in
scope" than the Federal program are not codified for purposes of enforcement
in Part 282. Section 282. of the [proposed] codification simply lists for
reference and clarity the [insert State name] statutory and regulatory
provisions which are "broader in scope" than the Federal program and which are
not, therefore, part of the approved program [[proposed for codification] or
[being codified today]]. "Broader in scope" provisions can not be enforced by
EPA; the State, however, will continue to enforce such provisions.
[If the State is approved for a partial program, or does not have
authority to implement requirements for certain segments of the tank universe
(as discussed in the MOA), please add language here to indicate that fact and
state that EPA is responsible for those portions of the program that have not
been approved.]
The codification of approved State programs in the CFR should
substantially enhance the public's ability to discern the current status of
the approved State program and clarify the extent of Federal enforcement
authority. This will be particularly true as States revise their approved
programs or incorporate additional Federal requirements.
Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. It [[proposes to codify] or [codifies]] the
decision already made to approve the [insert State name] underground storage
program and has no separate effect on owners and operators of underground
storage tanks or upon small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require
a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Compliance With Executive Order 12291
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive Order 12291.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 jet. seq., Federal
agencies must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information request
contained in a proposed or final rule. This rule will not impose any
information requirements upon the regulated community.
D-3
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
List of Subjects In 40 CFR Part 282
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials,
Incorporation by reference, Petroleum, State program approval, and Underground
storage tanks.
Dated:
Regional Administrator
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 282 is [proposed] as
follows:
PART 282 - APPROVED UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAMS
1. The authority for Part 282 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 2002, 9004, 9005, and 9006 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.
2. The table of contents for Part 282 is as follows:
SUBPART [insert appropriate letter(s) and appropriate numbers] - State
name
282. State Approval
282. State-Administered Program
282. - 282. [Reserved]
i*^
3. 40 CFR Part 282, Subpart [insert appropriate letter and appropriate
numbers] is as follows:
282. State Approval
(a) The State of [insert State name] is approved to
administer and enforce an underground storage tank
program in lieu of the Federal program under Subtitle
I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6991 et. seq.. subject to the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA),
(P.L. 98-616, November 8, 1984), 42 U.S.C. 6991c,
6991d, and 6991e). The Federal program for which a
State may receive approval is defined in 40 CFR Part
281. The State's program, as administered by the
[insert State lead agency] was approved by EPA
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6991c and Part 281 of this
D-4
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
Chapter. EPA's approval was effective on [insert
date]. See [insert appropriate Federal Register
reference].
(b) [Insert State name] has primary responsibility for
enforcing its underground storage tank program.
However, EPA retains the authority to exercise its
enforcement authorities under Sections 9005 and 9006
of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e, as well as under
other Federal laws and regulations.
(c) [Insert State name] must revise its approved program
to adopt new changes to the Federal Subtitle I program
in accordance with Section 9004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6991c, and 40 CFR Part 281, Subpart E. If [insert
State name] obtains approval for the revised
requirements pursuant to Section 9004 of RCRA, 42
U.S.C. 6991c, the newly approved provisions will be
listed in §281. of this Subpart.
282. State-Administered Program: Final Approval Pursuant to
Section 9004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c.
[Insert State name] has final approval for the following elements
submitted to EPA in [insert State name] program application for final approval
and approved by EPA on [insert Federal Register date of final approval.]
(a) State Statute and Regulations. (1) The requirements
in the [insert State name] statutes and regulations
cited in this paragraph are incorporated by reference
and codified as part of the underground storage tank
program under Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et.
seq. This incorporation by reference was approved by
the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552 (a).
(i) [Insert reference for statutory
authorities that are part of the approved
program under Subtitle I of RCRA.]
(ii) [Insert reference for underground storage
tank rules that are part of the approved
program under Subtitle I of RCRA.]
(2) The following statutes and regulations, although not
codified herein for enforcement purposes, are part of
the approved State program.
(i) [Insert reference for statutory
authorities that are not to be
D-5
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
incorporated by reference but are part of
the approved program.]
(ii) [Insert reference for regulations that are
not to be incorporated by reference but
are part of the approved program under
Subtitle I of RCRA.]
(3) The following statutory and regulatory provisions are
broader in scope than the Federal program, are not
part of the approved program, and are not codified
herein for enforcement purposes.
(i) [Insert statutory provisions, if any, that
are broader in scope.]
(ii) [Insert regulatory provisions, if any,
that are broader in scope.]
(b) Memorandum of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement
between EPA Region and the [insert State lead
agency], signed by the EPA Regional Administrator on
[insert appropriate date] is codified as part of the
approved underground storage tank program under
Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et sea. [Insert
language describing any portions of the program which
EPA will retain authority, e.g., partial program or
uncovered segment of the tank universe.]
(c) Statement of Legal Authority. (1) "Attorney General's
Statement for Final Approval", signed by the Attorney
General of [insert State name] on [insert appropriate
date] is codified as part of the approved underground
storage tank program under Subtitle I of RCRA, 42
U.S.C. 6991 et. sea.
(2) Letter from the Attorney General of [insert State
name] to EPA, [insert appropriate date] is codified as
part of the approved underground storage tank program
under Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et. seq.
(d) Program Description. The program description and any
other material submitted as part of the original
application or as supplements thereto are codified as
part of the approved underground storage tank program
under Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et. sea.
282. - 282. Reserved
D-6
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
Immediate Final Codification Notice for Program Revisions
Codifying Program Revisions
(Model Federal Register Notice)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 282
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM: CODIFICATION OF APPROVED STATE UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANK PROGRAM FOR [insert name of State]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
ACTION: Immediate Final Rule
SUMMARY: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as amended (RCRA)
authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to grant approval to
States to operate their underground storage tank programs in lieu of the
Federal program. 40 CFR Part 282 codifies EPA's prior approval of State
programs and incorporates by reference those provisions of the State statutes
and regulations that EPA will enforce under Sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA 42
U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e. Thus, EPA intends to codify the approved underground
storage tank program of [insert name of State] in Part 282.
DATES: The codification of [insert State name] approved underground storage
tank program shall be effective [insert date 60 days after publication] unless
EPA publishes a prior Federal Register action withdrawing this immediate final
rule. All comments on the codification of approved program of [insert State
name] must be received by the close of business [insert date 30 days after
publication]. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed
in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register, as of
, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a). Copies may be inspected at [insert
the name of the agency and address] or at the Office of the Federal Register,
1100 L Street, NW., Room 8401, Washington, DC.
ADDRESSES: Written comments' should be sent to [insert name, address, and
telephone number of the appropriate Regional contact].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [Insert name, address, and telephone number
of the appropriate Regional contact].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 9004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as
amended, (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6991, allows the U.S. Environmental Protection
D-7
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
Agency (EPA) to approve State underground storage tank programs to operate in
the State in lieu of the Federal underground storage tank program. On [insert
date of final determination], EPA published a Federal Register notice
announcing its decision to grant approval to [insert State name]. (See
EPA codifies its approval of State programs in Part 282 of Title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and incorporates by reference therein the
State statutes and regulations that EPA will enforce under Sections 9005 and
9006 of RCRA 42 U.S.C. 6973, 6991d, and 6991e. The intended codification
reflects the State program in effect at the time EPA grants [insert State
name] approval under Section 9004(a) 42 U.S.C. 6991c(a) for its underground
storage tank programs.
This effort provides clear notice to the public of the scope of the
approved program in each State. Revisions to State underground storage tank
programs are necessary when Federal statutory or regulatory authority is
modified. By codifying the approved [insert State name] program and by
amending the Code of Federal Regulations whenever a new or different set of
requirements is approved in [insert State name], the status of Federally
approved requirements of the [insert State name] program will be readily
discernible.
The Agency will only codify for enforcement purposes those provisions of
the [insert State name] underground storage tank program for which approval
has been granted by EPA.
To codify the [insert State name] approved underground storage tank
program, EPA intends to add Subpart [ ] to Part 282 of Title 40 of the CFR.
Subpart [ ] has previously been reserved for [insert State name]. Section
282. intends to codify for enforcement purposes the State statutes and
regulations. Section 282. codifies the Memorandum of Agreement, the
Attorney General's Statement and the Program Description which are part of the
approved underground storage tank program under Subtitle I of RCRA.
The Agency retains the authority under Sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA,
42 U.S.C. 6973, 6991d, and 6991e, to undertake enforcement actions in approved
States. With respect to such an enforcement action, the Agency will rely on
Federal sanctions, Federal inspection authorities and the Federal
Administrative Procedure Act rather than the State authorized analogs to these
requirements. Therefore, the Agency does not intend to codify for purposes of
enforcement such particular, approved [insert State name] enforcement
authorities. [Proposed] [S]ection 282 lists those approved [insert State
name] authorities that would fall into this category.
The public also needs to be aware that some provisions of the State's
underground storage tank program are not part of the Federally approved State
program. These non-approved provisions are not part of the RCRA Subtitle I
program because they are "broader in scope" than Subtitle 1 of RCRA. See 40
CFR §281.12(a)(3)(ii). As a result, State provisions which are "broader in
D-8
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
scope" than the Federal program are not codified for purposes of enforcement
in Part 282. Section 282. of the intended codification simply lists for
reference and clarity the [insert State name] statutory and regulatory
provisions which are "broader in scope" than the Federal program and which are
not, therefore, part of the approved program being codified. "Broader in
scope" provisions can not be enforced by EPA; the State, however, will
continue to enforce such provisions.
The codification of approved State programs in the CFR should
substantially enhance the public's ability to discern the current status of
the approved State program and clarify the extent of Federal enforcement
authority. This will be particularly true as States revise their approved
programs or adopt additional Federal requirements.
Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. It intends to codify the decision already made to
authorize the [insert State name] program and has no separate effect on owners
and operators of underground storage tanks or upon small entities. This rule,
therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Compliance With Executive Order 12291
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive Order 12291.
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 or final rule. This rule will not impose any
information requirements upon the regulated community.
List of Subjects In 40 CFR Part 282
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials,
Incorporation by reference, Petroleum, State program approval, and Underground
storage tanks.
Dated:
Regional Administrator
D-9
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 282 is [proposed to be]
revised as follows:
PART 282 - APPROVED UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAMS
1. The authority for Part 282 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 2002, 9004, 9005, and 9006 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991(c), (d), and (e).
2. The table of contents for Part 282 is revised to read as follows:
SUBPART [insert appropriate letter(s) and appropriate numbers] - State
name
282. State Approval
282. State-Administered Program
282. - 282. [Reserved]
3. 40 CFR Part 282, Subpart [insert appropriate letter and appropriate
numbers] is amended to read as follows:
282. State Approval
(a) The State of [insert State name] is approved to
administer and enforce an underground storage tank
program in lieu of the Federal program under Subtitle
I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.. subject to the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA),
(P.L. 98-616, November 8, 1984), 42 U.S.C. 6991 (c),
(d), and (e). The Federal program for which a State
may receive approval is defined in 40 CFR Part 281.
The State's program, as administered by the [insert
State lead agency] was approved by EPA pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 6991 (c) and Part 281 of this Chapter. EPA's
approval was effective on [insert appropriate Federal
Register reference].
(b) [Insert State name] has primary responsibility for
enforcing its underground storage tank program.
However, EPA retains the authority to exercise its
enforcement authorities under Sections 9005 and 9006
of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e, as well as under
other Federal laws and regulations.
(c) [Insert State name] must revise its approved program
to adopt new changes to the Federal Subtitle I program
in accordance with Section 9004 of RCRA 42 U.S.C.
D-10
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
6991c and 40 CFR Part 281, Subpart E. If [insert
State name] obtains approval for the revised
requirements pursuant to Section 9004 42 U.S.C. 6991c,
the newly approved provisions will be listed in
§281. of this Subpart.
282. State-Administered Program: Final Approval Pursuant to
Section 9004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c.
[Insert State name] has final approval for the following elements
submitted to EPA in [insert State name] program application for final approval
and approved by EPA on [insert Federal Register date of final approval.]
(a) State Statute and Regulations. (1) The requirements
in the [insert State name] statutes and regulations
cited in this paragraph are incorporated by reference
and codified as part of the underground storage tank
program under Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et
sea. This incorporation by reference was approved by
the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552 (a).
(i) [Insert reference for statutory
authorities that are part of the approved
program under Subtitle I of RCRA.]
(ii) [Insert reference for underground storage
tank rules that are part of the approved
program under Subtitle I of RCRA.]
(2) The following statutes and regulations, although not
codified herein for enforcement purposes, are part of
the approved State program.
(i) [Insert reference for statutory
authorities that are not to be
incorporated by reference but are part of
the approved program.]
(ii) [Insert reference for regulations that are
not to be incorporated by reference but
are part of the approved program under
Subtitle I of RCRA.]
(3) The following statutory and regulatory provisions are
broader in scope than the Federal program, are not
part of the approved program, and are not codified
herein for enforcement purposes.
D-ll
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
(i) [Insert statutory provisions, if any, that
are broader in scope.]
(ii) [Insert regulatory provisions, if any,
that are broader in scope.]
(b) Memorandum of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement
between EPA Region and the [insert State lead
agency], signed by the EPA Regional Administrator on
[insert appropriate date] is codified as part of the
approved underground storage tank program under
Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.
(c) Statement of Legal Authority. (1) "Attorney General's
Statement for Final Approval", signed by the Attorney
General of [insert State name] on [insert appropriate
date] is codified as part of the approved underground
storage tank program under Subtitle I of RCRA, 42
U.S.C. 6991 et sea.
(2) Letter from the Attorney General of [insert State
name] to EPA, [insert appropriate date] is codified as
part of the approved underground storage tank program
under Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.
(d) Program Description. The program description and any
other material submitted as part of the original
application or as supplements thereto are codified as
part of the approved underground storage tank program
under Subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq.
282. - 282. Reserved
D-12
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
CFR REFERENCE FOR CODIFICATION OF STATE UST PROGRAMS
PART 282
Subpart B - Alabama
282.59-282.99
Subpart C - Alaska
282.100-282-149
Subpart D - Arizona
282.150-282.199
Subpart E - Arkansas
282.200-282.249
Subpart F - California
282.250-282.299
Subpart 6 - Colorado
282.300-282.349
Subpart H - Connecticut
282.350-282.399
Subpart I - Delaware
282.400-282.449
Subpart J - District of Columbia
282.450-282.499
Subpart K - Florida
282.500-282.549
Subpart L - Georgia
282.550-282.599
Subpart M - Hawaii
282.600-282.649
Subpart N - Idaho
282.650-282.699
Subpart 0 - Illinois
282.700-282.749
Subpart P - Indiana
282.750-282.799
D-13
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
Subpart Q - Iowa
282.800-282.849
Subpart R - Kansas
282.850-282.899
Subpart S - Kentucky
282.900-282.949
Subpart T - Louisiana
282.950-282.999
Subpart U - Maine
282.1000-282.1049
Subpart V - Maryland
282.1050-282.1099
Subpart V - Massachusetts
282.1100-282.1149
Subpart X - Michigan
282.1150-282.1199
Subpart Y - Minnesota
282.1200-282.1249
Subpart Z - Mississippi
282.1250-282.1299
Subpart AA - Missouri
282.1300-282.1349
Subpart BB - Montana
282.1350-282.1399
Subpart CO - Nebraska
282.1400-282.1449
Subpart DD - Nevada
282.1450-282.1499
Subpart EE - New Hampshire
282.1500-282.1549
Subpart FF - New Jersey
282.1550-282.1599
Subpart 66 - New Mexico
282.1600-282.1649
D-14
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
Subpart HH - New York
282.1650-282.1699
Subpart II - North Carolina
282.7000-282.1749
Subpart JJ - North Dakota
282.1750-282.1799
Subpart KK - Ohio
282.1800-282.1849
Subpart LL - Oklahoma
282.1850-282.1899
Subpart MM - Oregon
282.1900-282.1949
Subpart NN - Pennsylvania
282.1950-282.1999
Subpart 00 - Rhode Island
282.2000-282.2049
Subpart PP - South Carolina
282.2050-282.2099
Subpart QQ - South Dakota
282.2100-282.2149
Subpart RR - Tennessee
282.2150-282.2199
Subpart SS - Texas
282.2200-282.2249
Subpart TT - Utah
282.2250-282.2299
Subpart UU - Vermont
282.2300-282.2349
Subpart W - Virginia
282.2350-282.2399
Subpart WW - Washington
282-2400-282.2449
Subpart XX - West Virginia
282.2450-282.2499
D-15
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
Subpart YY - Wisconsin
282.2500-282.2549
Subpart ZZ - Wyoming
282.2550-282.2599
Subpart AAA - Guam
282.2600-282.2649
Subpart BBB - Puerto Rico
282.2650-282.2699
Subpart CCC - Virgin Islands
282.2700-282.2749
Subpart DDD - American Samoa
282.2750-282.2799
Subpart EEE - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
282.2800-282.2849
D-16
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12
APPENDIX E
CHECKLIST FOR COMPLETE STATE APPLICATIONS
-------
COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST
1. Governor's Letter ....
2. Attorney's General Certification I I
3. Attorney's General Statement
(Demonstration of No Less Stringent Objectives and I
Adequate Enforcement Authorities)
4. Demonstration of Adequate Enforcement Procedures ....
5. Program Description I I
6. Memorandum of Agreement I I
7. State Statutes
8. State Regulations
9. Schedule for Interim Approval
(If Applying for Interim Approval)
------- |