United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
&EPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
TITLE:
DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
9650.12
Suggested Procedures For Review Of
State UST Applications
May 1992
OSWER
OSWER
OSWER
OSWER
DIRECTIVE
DIRECTIVE
DIRECTIVE
-------
Table of Contents
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER II. OVERVIEW AND APPROACH 2
CHAPTER III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 11
Overview 11
Regional Review Team Members 12
State Applicant 13
Headquarters Offices 14
CHAPTER IV. REVIEW PROCESS 16
Phase 1: Acceptance of Application 16
Phase 2: Substantive Review and Tentative Determination 17
Phase 3: Review of Public Comments and Final Determination 19
CHAPTER V. SCHEDULE FOR APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS 19
CHAPTER VI. CODIFICATION OF APPROVED STATE PROGRAMS 23
CHAPTER VII. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS FOR STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL
DECISIONS 24
APPENDIX A: STATUTORY CHECKLIST A-l
APPENDIX B: GUIDANCE ON PREPARING FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES B-l
APPENDIX C: APPROVAL DETERMINATIONS C-l
APPENDIX D: CODIFICATION OF APPROVED STATE PROGRAMS D-l
APPENDIX E: CHECKLIST FOR COMPLETE STATE APPLICATIONS E-l
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.
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.
OSWER Directive 9650.12 iii
-------
CHAPTER 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.
OSWER Directive 9650.12
-------
CHAPTER 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 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
OSWER Directive 9650.12
-------
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 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.
OSWER Directive 9650.12
-------
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 1. 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.
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.
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
OSWER Directive 9650.12
-------
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.
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.
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.
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
OSWER Directive 9650.12
-------
D Bring AG's Office into the team structure at the beginning of the process.
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.
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."
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.
6) Has the State produced a program description for inclusion in the final State Program Approval
application?
OSWER Directive 9650.12
-------
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.
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.
OSWER Directive 9650.12
-------
Exhibit 2. State Program Approval Pre-Application Checklist
STATE ACTIVITIES
REGIONAL ACTIVITIES
State drafts UST statutes; State Attorney General
1) conducts analysis of how they meet the
requirements
Regional UST program reviews draft UST statutes
Regional UST Attorney reviews draft UST statutes
a. State revises UST statutes
Regional UST program reviews revised UST
statutes
Regional UST Attorney reviews revised UST
statutes
2)
State drafts UST regulations; State Attorney
General conducts analysis of how they meet the
requirements
Regional UST program reviews draft UST
regulations
Regional UST Attorney reviews draft UST
regulations
a. State revises UST regulations
Regional UST program reviews revised UST
regulations
Regional UST Attorney reviews revised UST
regulations
3)
State develops funding sources for UST program
4)
State develops enforcement procedures for UST
program
Regional UST program reviews procedures
Regional UST Attorney reviews procedures
a. Procedures acceptable to State Attorney
General's Office
5)
State drafts program description
Regional UST program conducts capability
assessment
6)
Attorney General drafts certification that program
requirements are "no less "stringent"
Regional UST program reviews certification to
verify its accuracy
Regional UST Attorney reviews certification to
verify its accuracy
7)
Governor drafts transmittal letter
Regional UST program reviews letter for accuracy
and completeness
8)
Draft application sent to Region for review
OSWER Directive 9650.12
10
-------
CHAPTER 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.
Exhibit 3. Participants in the State Program Approval Process
OSWER Directive 9650.12 11
-------
Regionsiheeplorc«pai! repreeentafive worka ireclly for ihe USTHPM, rattier then inaaaparateeniorcemefdatUca
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.
OSWER Directive 9650.12
12
-------
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.
• 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.
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 form is optional; States may tailor the application format to suit
OSWER Directive 9650.12 13
-------
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.
• 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
OSWER Directive 9650.12 14
-------
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.
• 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.
OSWER Directive 9650.12 15
-------
CHAPTER 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.
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 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.)
OSWER Directive 9650.12 16
-------
Exhibit 4. Steps i
Phase 2: Substantive Review and Tentative Determination
I
Once the application is complete, we recommend the Review Team take about three weeks to
review the application.
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.
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
OSWER Directive 9650.12
17
-------
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.
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.
OSWER Directive 9650.12 18
-------
Phase 3: Review of Public Comments and Final Determination
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.
• 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.
CHAPTER 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.
A streamlined schedule for program approval is shown on pages 27 and 28. This schedule assumes that:
OSWER Directive 9650.12 19
-------
• 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 . . . . . .
„ Approval Activities
Days ™
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
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
OSWER Directive 9650.12 20
-------
EXTENDED APPROVAL SCHEDULE
Calendar
„ Approval Activities
Days *^
1 Log and Transmit Complete Application To Review Team
21 Review Team Completes Initial Review of Application
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
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
OSWER Directive 9650.12 21
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.12 22
-------
CHAPTER 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 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.
OSWER Directive 9650.12 23
-------
CHAPTER 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 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.
OSWER Directive 9650.12 24
-------
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.
OSWER Directive 9650.12 25
-------
APPENDIX A: STATUTORY CHECKLIST
State:
Statutory Element
A. Definitions
1. Underground Storage Tank - States must have
jurisdiction over the following tank universe:
a. (tank) any stationary device constructed primarily
of nonearthen materials which provide structural
support,
b. (used to contain an accumulation of regulated
substances) which contains any amount of a
regulated substance for any period of time,
c. (connected piping) and all piping connected to the
tank through which regulated substances flow,
d. (beneath the surface of the ground) with 10% or
more of the volume (tank and piping) either below
grade or beneath ground material.
2. Optional Exclusions - States may exclude from their
jurisdiction one or more of the following types of tanks,
in whole or in part:
a. farm or residential tank of 1,100 gallons or less
capacity used for storing motor fuel for
noncommercial purposes,
b. tank used for storing heating oil for on-site
consumption
c. septic tank
d. pipeline facility regulated under the Natural Gas
Pipeline Safety Act, the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline
Safety Act or comparable state law,
e. surface impoundment, pit, pond, or lagoon
f. stormwater or wastewater collection system
g. flow through tank integral to a manufacturing
process
h. liquid-trap and gathering lines directly related to oil
and gas production and gathering operations
i. storage tank located on or above the floor in an
underground room
*3. Regulated Substance
a. petroleum - State must include all petroleum
substances which are liquid at standard temperature
and pressure, including waste oil,
b. hazardous substances - State must include all
substances on the CERCLA list, 40 CFR 302.4, but
may exclude any substance subject to regulation
under Subtitle C as a hazardous waste.
Subtitle I
Cite
9001(1)
9001(1)
9001(2)
9001(2)
State
Cite
Coverage
Y/N
Comments
OSWER Directive 9650.12
A-l
-------
Statutory Element
4. Operator - State must include any person in control of
or having responsibility for, the daily operation of an
underground storage tank
5 . Release - State must include any spilling, leaking,
emitting, discharging, escaping, leaching, or disposing
from an underground storage tank into groundwater,
surface water, or subsurface soils.
6. Person - State must include any individual, trust,
firm, joint stock company, corporation (including a
government corporation), partnership, consortium, joint
venture, commercial entity, association, State,
municipality, commission, political subdivision or a
State, interstate body, and the United States
Government.
B. Leak Detection Requirements
State must have authority to establish requirements for
maintaining a leak detection system, inventory control
system together with tank testing, or a comparable
system or method designed to identify releases in a
manner consistent with the protection of human health
and the environment.
C. Recordkeeping Requirements
State must have authority to establish requirements for
maintaining records of any monitoring or leak detection
system or inventory control system or tank testing
system.
D. Reporting Requirements
1 . Releases - State must have authority to establish
requirements for reporting any release from an
underground storage tank
2. Corrective action - State must have authority to
establish requirements for reporting any corrective
action taken in response to a release from an
underground storage tank.
E. Corrective Action Requirements
State must have authority to establish requirements for
taking corrective action in response to a release from an
underground storage tank.
F. Closure Requirements
State must have authority to establish requirements for
the closure of underground storage tanks to prevent
future releases of regulated substances into the
environment.
Subtitle I
Cite
9001(4)
9001(5)
9001(6)
9004(a)(l)
9004(a)(2)
9004(a)(3)
9004(a)(3)
9004(a)(4)
9004(a)(5)
State
Cite
Coverage
Y/N
Comments
OSWER Directive 9650.12
A-2
-------
Statutory Element
G. Financial Responsibility
State must have authority to establish requirements for
maintaining evidence of financial responsibility for
taking corrective action and compensating third parties
for bodily injury and property damage caused by sudden
and nonsudden accidental releases arising from the
operation of an underground storage tank.
A State may establish this financial responsibility
authority if it has the authority to develop and
administer a corrective action and compensation
program financed by fees on tank owners and operators.
H. New Tank Standards
States must have the authority to establish performance
standards for new underground storage tanks, including
but not limited to the following
a. design
b. construction
c. installation
d. release detection
e. compatibility
I. Notification Requirements
States must have the authority to establish the
notification requirements specified in 9002(a) for any
operational and non-operational underground storage
tank and requirements for submitting this information to
the Agency designated in 9002(b).
J. Inspection and Entry Authority
1 . States must have the authority to obtain from any
owner or operator of an underground storage tank, upon
request, information relating to such tanks, their
associated equipment, and their contents; to require
monitoring or testing; to enter at reasonable times any
place where an underground storage tank is located; to
inspect and obtain from any person samples of regulated
substances contained in the tank; to conduct monitoring
or testing of the tanks, associated equipment, contents,
or surrounding environment; and to have access to at all
reasonable times, or to copy, all records relating to such
tanks, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this
program.
2. States must have authority to make the information
obtained under the above authority available without
restriction, upon request, to the US EPA and to any duly
authorized committee of Congress.
Subtitle I
Cite
9004(a)(6),
9004(c)
9004(a)(7)
9004(a)(8),
9002
9005
State
Cite
Coverage
Y/N
Comments
* State program may cover petroleum or hazardous substances or both
OSWER Directive 9650.12
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B: 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.
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;
OSWER Directive 9650.12 B-l
-------
• 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).
FEDERAL REGISTER CHECKLIST FOR NOTICES, PROPOSED 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 questions can be answered through the Federal
Register Document Drafting Handbook[DDH])
Section One: Notice Documents
(This section applies to Notice of public hearings, meeting, and/or workshops, Correction Notices,
Notices extending comment periods, and Notices of Availability)
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 preamable 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 Intended 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 original plus 3 copies? Do your copies match? (DDH 62)
SIGNED
OSWER Directive 9650.12 B-2
-------
Section Two: Proposed and Final Rules
; " ;-:v••••-•;•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••- YES -.NO;.
1. Does your document include the required preamable elements: AGENCY, 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, Why
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? (DDH 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 number in correct sequence? (a), (1), (i), (A)
(DDH 30)
9. Is text of regulation displayed correctly (include all section headings, and place the
asertisks appropriately)? (DDH 30)
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
OSWER Directive 9650.12 B-3
-------
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 4 - 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:
o $ 125.00 per Federal Register column;
o $375.00 per Federal Register page;
o A table or graph is considered as one page.
• Item 10 - Financial data should be supplied by the commitment 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 designee'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 commitment 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.
OSWER Directive 9650.12 B-4
-------
FEDERAL REGISTER TYPESETTING REQUEST
,,',-< • H\ < .-l', i..' p. i
1 • I ' * . I i • >• i ' „'
S. ASSIGNED F
4, DP EN REDUEriCN NUMBER
5, BB-LMGODDE
, FCBW*RDED ~D BCNA~URE
DATE
. N UHBE R Of LBOFilf
, EBT!M*TED NUMBERPFCPlLWlHa
IB, FINANCIAL DATA
FMPiJSE
IS)
[ilj D»"E
'..(•• "„'. ENLMBER
13. FUNDS ARE iBMIiWiiliZrCCf*,;
OSWER Directive 9650.12
B-5
-------
Sample Federal Register Notices
"Cancellation Notice of Scheduled Public Hearings" ~ Federal Register/Vol.55,No.63/Monday, April 2,
1990/Proposed Rules/p. 12205
Ksvbter / VoL SS, M>. 6S / Monday, April 2. 1D90 / ftaMmtd fed**
prior to Die-effective date «f 38 OFB part
7 subpart O," Tbti wtmU en«Me mine
operators to contUttK to safely «sr
blasting soH« *fceady accepted fa uae
by the Agency. Thin acceptance could
have been granted under an interim
criteria issued for a large capacity
blasting unit or through »n evaluation
which determined a particular anil lo be
as safe for use as an approved unit.
Executive Older 12291 and the
Sagotatoiy Hexftifiry Act
Thii proposed rule would revise
previously issued methane standards to
allow mine operators to uie any MSHA
approved multiple-shot bla&iirig wtri
without regard to the specific approval
part under which ii was Issued and
delete* certain perfoit&BRce
requirements which are the same as
those required for approi-al of blurting
unto by part 7 wbpart D. There j» no
cost Impact of this proposed revision ropoMd to fee
amended by revismj parajp-aptu («) aad
(g) torrati *i foUowK
JS7.
(a) Mine openttors AaM aottfy Ac
appmprfate MSHA Dittrid M«B^er «f
all ni'» UST program
apptkarton tat final appnuvml wer»
|FR Doc. 90-?«52 Filsd 3-30-90: 8:« an^
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the Secretary
Office of Owtespoctor General ,
42 CFKftarts tVDO, *t»l, 1002, t09S,
1004, toos, «MH, md tto?
RWOKH-AA4?
Hetttti Cwe fVograirw: fraud and
Abase; Anmmlmmt* to CHG Extitratan
•nd CMP Aothwrffle
Pirbtic Urw 1W-W
AaEMOc OBk* «rf tb* Seerelwy. Office
of inspector C«ner*l < OIGJ, liHS,
AOMON: Profxaed rate
proposed
impteaent tie OIG sanction and civil
money peoatiy provisions established
through section 2 and other canforming
amendntenti tn Public Law iw-W. the
Medicare MM) MedMakl P«t>e»t «M<
Piograra Protection Act of 1967. ateng
with certain additional provisions
contained in Public Law B9-Z72> Ike
Coiwolidated ChenibHS Budget
RecoBciliatioii Act of 13S5 and Publk
Law HXKSeo, the Medicare Catastrophic
Coverage Act of 1988. Specifically, thtsc
regaktktrts cr« Uesignea to protect
program beneficiaries from unfit health
care praclitioaers, and otherwise to
improve the anti-fraud provisions of the
Department's health care programs
under titles V, XVHi, XIX. and XX
-------
"Mississippi; Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program" ~ Federal
Register/Vol.55,No.ll2/Monday, June 11, 1990/Proposed Rules/p.23549
FedanJ RggUtef / Vol. 55. No, U2, / Moodar. Jun» tl, 1990 / Rules and Regulaticma 23541*
action is coturiiteirt with the letter «nd
spirit of the SIP, when read in
conjunction witk the Clean Air Act tnd
EPA'» regulations. EPA bettOTei that the
language in question tn tils September 1,
1988, wrtlc*, a» cUriflwi fcera. «ecJWalE\y
describe* the legal relationship between
EPA and the Commonwealth of
Kentucky with reaped to the NSR
program.
Under 5 U.S.C 605fb), 1 certify that
this notice wffl not have a significant
economic impact on t substantial
Dumber of small entities.
The Office of Management and Budget
ha* exempted thii rate from the
requirements at section 3 of Rxecvrttv*
Order 122«.
list of Subject* in 4ft GFR Part S3
Air pollution control
Intergovernmental relations.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 74O1-7W2,
Dated; May 31, JdW.
F.HawjHabidU,
Aciing Admiitistrtiter.
[FR Doc, 90-13432 Filed «~8~8ft IMS *nt|
; Final Approval of Start
Underground Stong* Tank Program
Aaetcr: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of SoaF determination DO
Mississippi's application for final
approval
SUMMARY: The State o£ Mississippi hae
applied for Una! approval of its
underground storage tank program
under Subtitle t of the Resource and
Conservation and Recovery Act
(FCRA). The Environmental Protection
Agency {EPA) ittw reviewed
Mississippi"B application and has
reached a fine! determination (hat
Mississippi'! underground storage tank
program satisfies all the requirement*
necessary to qualify for final approval.
Thus, EPA is granting final approval to
the State of Mississippi to operate it*
program.
tFFECTIvC DATE; Final approval for
Mississippi thai] be effective fuly 11,
M90.
FOR rURTMW INFORMATION CONTACT:
John K. Mason, Chief. Urufergronud
Storage Tank Section. UJ3. EPA. Region
IV, 345 Conrtiand Street NE., Atlanta,
Georgia 30365, 404/347-366*.
A. Background
Section 9001 oi RCSA ensbies EPA to
approve state underground storage tank
program* to operate in *itata ta ben of
the federal underground storage tank
program. To qualify for finaj
authorization,, a date's program isust:
[1} B» "twj te«ir ftrfeigeur** than the
federal program, as3{2f prorMe for
adequate enforcement (section 9001(aJ
of RCRA, 42 U.5.C. BS28PJJ.
On October 2,1989, EPA
acknowietiged recefving from the State
of Mississippi • completed official
application to oiitsm fins! approva? to
administeT itstKidergraotid ftorag* tarii
program. On February 30,1990, EPA
published a tentativr decision
announcing Its Intent to grant
MiasisatppiEnal approval of its
program, Further background on the
tentative decision to grant approval
appears at 55 FR 9861, February20,1990.
Along wift fta teijtaUva
defrnntnation, EPA announced the
availability of the appJJcation for public
comment antf die date of a public
hearing on tte application, EPA
revested, fidv^nue noflce for testinic
of public Merest. Since there was no
public request, ftff puWic-tearing was
cancelled. No public cummeuta urmis
received regarding EPA'* approval of
program.
B. Decision
I conclude that tee State of
Mississippi's application for final
approval meet* all of Oat statutory and
regulatory iequiMfflent» established by
Subtitle I of ROSA, Accordingly,
Mississippi it granted final approval to
operate its underground tUnsge \ank
program, the State of Mississippi now
has the rwptrruibility for managing all
regulated underground ttorege tank
facililiet within it* 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 light to conduct
enforcement actioos under section 9006
ofSCRA.
Compliance with Executive Ontec 12291
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 9 of Executive
Order 12291.
Certification Under Urn Regulatory
Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provtsiono of S li'.S.C
COSfti). 1 hweby certify thai to approval
will not hava a significant economic
impact mi a sub» tan rial number of «m»
entities. This approval effectively
suspends the applicability of certain
federal regulations in favor of tie State
oi Mississippi's program, thereby
eliminating applicative requirement:) for
owners and operators of luidergronnd
storage tank* within the State. It does
not impose any new burdens oit small
etititiea, Thi» rule, therefore, does wrt
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
List of Subject* In 4ft CFR Part Ml
Administrative practice and
procedure, Hazardous materials, State
pnigranr approval and underground
storage tanks.
Authority. lecUcra KK» of the Solid Wgite
DlspoKkl Act u amended. 42 U.S.C SSl^s),
89?4(b), «ndS9Bl(c>,
Dated: April ST. 1880.
Gr«r C TWwelL
Regional AdministKitar.
(FR Doc. 90-13440 Filed S-S-WX 8:4$ am]
BIUJM toot. <
DEPARTMENT OF THE tKTERtOR
F)«fi and WHdftfe 3«rvtc*
Refuge Specific Rafting NcgutetkHts
CFH Coirection
In till* 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, parti t to ISS, revised as of
October 1.1989. on page 461 paragraphs
(a)(l) and (2) and (b) wen incorrectly
removed from i 33.S3. Section 33.53 wa*
added at 50 FR 29084, July 23,1335. and
emended at 55 FH1491, January 20,1S8&
The entire text of paragraphs ja] and (b)
of J 33-53 reads a» follows:
533.S3 Wtecontfn.
la) Horictrn National WilJ!,'fe Refuge,
Fishing is permitted an designated sreas
of the refuge subject to the followirig
conditions:
(I) Fishing is permitted from Aprii 15
through September 15.
(2) Only bank fishing is permitted,
(b) Necedaft National Wildlife
Refuge. Fishing is permitted on
designated area* of the refuge sabjeti to
the following conditions:
(1) Pishing ia permitted only in
Sprague and Goose Poola including th
outlets a» far Booth at Spragiie-Mntber
Road.
OSWER Directive 9650.12
B-7
-------
"Mississippi; Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program" (begins bottom of column 2)
Federal Register/Vol.55,No.34/Tuesday, February 20, 1990/Proposed Rules/p.5861
Federal Kegiatai / Vol. 55. No. 84 / Tuesday, February 20. 1990 / Proposed Rules 5861
Rutemaking Review Committee On
January 23,1990, and submitted to OSM
cm February 7,1990 [Administrative
Record No. WV 821J. OSM i» seeking
eornmenta 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 sbouW fee specific,
pertain only to the issues proposed in
this rulemaking and include
explanations in support of the
wMnmentet's recommendations.
Comments received after the time
indicated under "DATES" of at
locations other than the OSM
Charleston Field Office will not
necessarily be considered In the final
rulemaking or included in the
Administrative Record.
lost of Subjects in 30 CFR Fart 348
Coalmining, Intergovernmental
relations, Surface mining, Underground
mining.
Dated: February 13,1990.
CarlC, Clow,
Assistant DirecUe, Eastern Field Operations.
JFR Doc. 9O-M18 Filed 2-16-90; 8:45 am]
BIUJM CODE 49W-M-U • . y
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 152
[OPP-36173; FRL 3715-4]
Notification to Secretary of Agriculture
of a Proposed Regulation on Criteria
for Classifying Pesticides ior
Beslricted-U»* Due to Ground Water
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA),
ACTION: Notification to the Secretary of
Agriculture. i/
SUMMARY: Notice is given that the
Administrator of EPA has forwarded to
the Secretary of Agriculture * proposed
regulation tinder section 25 of the
Federal Insecticide, Fwtgieideva»d
Rodentieide Act (FIFRA), The proposed
rule would add new criteria in 40 CFR
152.170 for selection of pesticide
product* as candidates for restricted-use
classification. Pesticide products
classified foe restricted-use under
authority of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodentieide Act (FIFRA)
section 3(d) may be purchased and used
only by certified pesticide applicators or
individuals under their supervision, TM*
action is required by section 25(s jf2)( A)
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
snd Rodentieide Act (FIFRA}, aa
amended,
FOB mtmtEft IWWttATIOH COKTfcCT,
By mail: David Alexander, Attorney
Advisor. Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Si, SW» Washington, DC 20480.
Office location and telephone number:
Rm, 1120A, CM#2,1921 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, {703-
557-0592].
SUPftEMEMTAItY INFOMMATIONt Section
2S(apJ(A) of FIFRA provides that the
Adataustrato* shatt provide the
Secretary of Agriculture with ft copy of
any proposed regulation at least €0 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
tbe proposed regulation, tbe
Adffliiiistajte may sign the proposed
regulation for publication ia 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 oa
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 */ seg-
Dsted: February 12,199O.
Douglas fi. Campt,
Director, Ofl'its of Pesticide Programs.
rFR Doc. 90-3813 Filed 2-1&-90; 8:45 am)
MLUNQ COM wea-so-o
« CFR Part 281
[FRLSWS-S]
Mlasiesippi; Approval of State
Underground Storage Tank Program
AflCNCV: 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: ft) The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPAJ ha» received a
complete application from the State of
Mississippi requesting final approval of
its underground storage tank flfSTJ
program under subtitle I of the Rescmrce
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA); pj EPA has reviewed
Mississippi's application and has made
tbe tentative decision that Mississippi's
UST program satisfies all of the
requirements necessary to qualify for
final approval; (3) Mississippi**
application for final approval is now
available for public review and copying;
(4) public comments are requested; and
{§] a public hearing will he held,
DATES; Requests to present oral
testimony should be filed by March 18,
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 pjiu f
whichever comes first Written *
comments must be received by April 13,
1990. EPA reserves %« right to cancel
tbe 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.
Maaoa, Chief, Underground Storage
Tank Section, U.S. EPA, Region IV, 345
Courtland Street N.E, 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
Jocalions for inspection and copying:
Mississippi Department ol Emrtroraaeni
Quality, 2380 Hwy. 80 West Jackson,
MS 39209, Phone: (601J 9S1-5I42;
U.S, EPA Headquarters, Library, PM
ZMA, 401M Street, SW-, Washington,
DC 20480, Phone: (202) 382-5929;
U.S. EPA Region IV, library, 1st Floor.
345 Courlland Street. N.I., Atlanta,
Georgia 30365, Phone (404) 347-4219.
Two bearings will be held in the
Embassy i Room, Metro Rameda Inn,
Ellis Avenue and Interstate 2fl West,
Jackson, Mississippi, The first hearing
will begin at 10:00 a,rn. and end at 1:00
p.m. The second hearing will begin at
7:00 p.m. and-contimiff until all
testimony ends or until 19:00 p.m..
whichever comes first,
row RWtTWE* wRMUMnoN COKTACT:
John Mason, Chief, Underground
Storage T«nk Section, U.S. EPA Region
IV, 345 Courtland St., NBU Atlanta. Ga.
30265. Comments should be sent to this
address. Phone {404} 347-3866.
OSWER Directive 9650.12
B-8
-------
"Mississippi; Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program" (continued) ~ Federal
Register/Vol.55,No.34/Tuesday, February 20, 1990/Proposed Rules/p.5862
5862 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 34 / Tuesday, February 20, 1900 / Proposed Rules
SUFfUEMEMTJUIV 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, Jsnown
aa "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.G.
692fi(c]] in the following elements:
corrective action, financial
responsibility, and new tank standards.
While operating under interim approval,
the State may complete the devetopBteni
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 fallowing elements:
corrective action, financial
responsibility, new tank standards,
release detection, release detection
record reporting, tank closure, .
notification requirements of section
SM04(a)(8); and (2) provides for adequate
enforcement of compliance with 0ST
standards (section 9004(8], 42 U.S.C
6S26(bj), EPA will consider all public
comments on iti 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 far 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
Groundwater 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) Acf of WBa The MUST
Act provided fof the following;
{1} The Mississippi Graundwater
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 byreference.
(3j 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 moaitoiing and
enforcement activities,
(S) A provision to allow the State to
take tirpely 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 32291
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from (he
requirement* of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291,
Certification Und« the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605{b3,1 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 burden* aa
small entities. This rule, therefore, does
not require a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
List or Subjects in 40 CFK Part 281
Administrative practice and
procedure, Hazardous material, State
program approval, and Underground
storage tanks.
Authority: This notice ia issued under the
authority of section 9004 of tfie Solid Waste
Disposal Wftite Act *s amended. 42 U&C
Avling Regional Adttiinistratijr
[FR Doc. 90-3915 Filed 2-16-90; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
"Offic* of the Secretary
49CFRPart29
IOST Docket No. 62; Notice 90-5}
RH4210S-AAM
Consolidation of Grant* to United
States Insular Area*
AGENCY: Department df Transportation,
Office of the Secretary,
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking:
withdrawal. •
SUMMARY: This action withdraws a
proposal of the Department of
Transportation (DOT) to consolidate six
grant program* 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 tiu
the proposed rule would not necewarit.
increase the efficiency of the grant-
making procedures at the Federal and
local levels and is, therefore,
withdrawing the proposal.
EFFECTIVE O*TE February 20,1990.
FOB FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher Bertram, Office of Programs
and Budget, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-8669.
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
1755) proposing to implement title V of
Public Law 85-134, 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 Aviation
Administration (FAA) within the six
programs proposed and making the
Federal Highway Administration the
responsible agency. The comments x
OSWER Directive 9650.12
B-9
-------
"New Mexico: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program" ~ Federal
Register/Vol.55,No.l80/Monday, September 17, 1990/Rules and Regulations/p.38064
38064
Register / Vol. 55. No. 180 / Monday. September 17. 10BO / Rules and Regulations
Dated; August 28,1390
Don, S. Clay,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid
Waste mid Emergency Response,
|FR Doc, SEK21SM Filed 9-14-90: 8:« amj
MUJMO COOK UHUMt
40 OFH Part 281
Ntw Mexico: Final Approval of State
Underground 5torag» Tank Program
ACnENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency,
ACTON: 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 1 of the Resource
Coajervalicm and Rooovery Act
(RGRA}. the Enviranaenul Protection
Agency (EPA) hu reviewed the New
Mexico application ftod determined.
subject to public review and comment.
that the New Mexico luxltrgroiind
storage tank program *a tiifiea ail of the
requirements Decenary la qualify for
final approval Thus, EPA I* jp-antiqg
approval to the State to operate its
pro-am unless advene public comment
shows the used far further review. Hie
New Mexico tpplict tioc far fiaai
approval la available for public review
DATES; Fiail authorization for ffae New
Mexico underground storage took
program ihftil be effective at 1 p.m- on
November 1&, 1990 oale*s EPA publish**
a priorf ader^l Rcgtctor action
withdrawals Uui final rule. AM
comment* on (lie New Mexico Anal
approval application DU»t be received
by the ckwe of business DO October 17,
1990.
ADDRESSES Copies of fee 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 SL Francis Drive, Santa
Fe. New Mexico 87503, Phone; 505/827-
3932; U.S, EPA Headquarter* library.
PM211A, 401 M Street SW, Washington.
DC 20460, Phone: 202/382-5926: and US,
EPA Regioe 6 Library. 1445 Ros*
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75302, Phone:
214/055-6755. Written comments should
be mitt to Program Manager,
Underground Storage Tank Program.
Attention William Rhea. Region 6, 1445
Ros* Avenue. Dallas. Texas 7S202,
Phone: 214 / 655-67SS
FOR FUHTHES INFORMATION CONTACT-.
New Mexico State ftogara Officer.
Underground Storage Tank Program,
Attention James Duck, US, EPA Region
6, Dallas, Texas 75202. Phone: 214/655-
67SS.
A, Background
Section 90M of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Aet (RGRA)
enables EPA to approve State
underground storage tank program* to
operate in the Slate in tieii of the Federal
underground storage tank (USTj
program. To qualify for final
authorization, a Stele'* program isnist:
(1) fie 'no lets •tringeot" than the
Federal program and (2] provide for
adequate enforcement (sections 9004l«)
and 900*(b) of RORA. 42 U-S.C
699lc(b)}.
On September ZS, 1969. the Slate the
regulatory deadline for tip^rauiii^ of
exiling underground storage lank*
could not be found to be no lea*
stringent iharj the Federal reqiiirejnents
found at 40 CFR WIM. Subsequent to
notificatiorj of this Batfag. on March ft
1990, the State, following a public
continent period and a public hearing on
the proposal, repealed eU State UST
regulation* pertaining to new tank
standards, general operating
requirements, release detection, release
reporting, response and corrective
action, lank closure and financial
responsibility. The Stete then adopted
by reference the oorrexponding Fesderal
UST regulations which became fully
effective on July 20. 1990, On July t,
1998. EPA received an amended
application from tin State reflecting the
adoption of the Federal relations |>y
reference as State regulations.
B. Decision
After reviewing the amended New
Mexico application, 1 coodode thai th«
Sta te's program meet* all of the
requirement* nrcetsary to qualify for
final approval Accordingly, the State of
New Mexico it gnmted final approval to
operate itt underground •torage i*nk
program. The Slate of Ntw Mexico now
has UK retyoniiliflHy tor »»t«n«gtiBj
underground ftomge tank Jaolibe*
within its border* *ad carrying o«l all
aipecu of the UST program. The State
of New MEXICO also OBI primary
enforcement responsibUity. altbttngfa
EPA retaini the right to conduct
inspections under »ectuMi 9805 of RCRA
U.S.C «991d and to take enforcement
action* under section 8006 of BORA
U.S.C.69We.
The Slate of New Mexico H not
authorized to operate the TJSTprojr«iB
on Indian lands and thie authority wifi
remain with EPA.
Compliance Wi& Executim Order 12291
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of #er,1ion 3 of Executive
Order !Z»l.
Certification Under Ike Regulatory
Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the ttrovirione of S U-S C
605(b), ! hereby certify «•)
•HIM* COOt
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CTR Parti
AOENCV: Foderal Conmunicatioa*
CornmissiciL
ACTION: Final rute correctiara.
SUMMAflV: Tills documcDl conecit •
•final rale (5S FR 18148, May & WO)
relating to the procedures lor
implementation of a fee collection
program under 4T U-S.C 156 {1988). The
final rules were *dopted to implement
chaj^e$ is that program o&der the
Omnibui Budge) ficcoacilialHxt Act of
1989.
Eincnvi nun: September 17, 1890.
OSWER Directive 9650.12
B-10
-------
"New Hampshire; Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program" (begins in 3rd Column) ~
Federal Register/Vol.56,No.77/Monday, April 22, 1991/Rules and Regulations/p. 16276
list of Subjects in 40 CFK Part 81
Air pollution control, Lead, Participate
matter. Sulfur dioxide.
Au&ority: Sections 107fd), 110 and *»(«)
of th* Clean Ait Act M amended.
Uated April 15. 1991.
AetingAasaisntAdmixtetTBtorfarAiranii
Radiation.
Table I.— PM~W Designations
[Area* for which EPA in* KKtntiy eaUtSei *«
affected State ft«t EPA beBeW* me ajaa ihovH
t» ndsripiAltd M ncMttiirawiil lex FM-tt*]
Califomt»_
Bullhtai City.
.~~.... Seonnnmw Coontj.
WeM Virginia
. Bnstos County.
. CttjrofWtertw.
* Baxd « PM-ie KAAQS vtolotiea*:
TABLErt
[AflMt tor wMeh EPA Ml wcwOr
•ftaclrtSMM Hurt EPA MWn*fe*»OB
- - - n nomtttnmnttorSOiI
kwt
OWorc Cos
niinatt:
Mwfaon Co....
st-ctwca..—
Mmttnt
lotheAc
TAH.E II— Cen&iued
[A;«u tot «Ndi EPA Rw WeonOr
«NKMd 9MtM «M Efi* h*i»»m tM «M
be reOeaiBnalad M nonBttamnwrt tor SO, J
WCFSPwtMl
WayrwCa
Ohte
Ottateiw:
WfflTBftOO,
TflXOK
H«* CO.
Jettenonco.
Wsconairt
DBWct 01 Coluinbii
Priiwy
16278 F«d«t«t Rcgfaof / Vol. S& No. ?7 / Monday. Aprii 22. t»l / Rute« ami Beg«totioiM>
Today'* Action
The EPA is, by thit n«ttce, ideoSfying
te the pabKe tSwse PM-1Q, SO,, and
lead areew for which EPA has notified
the affected Steles that EPA believe* the
area should be designated or the
designation should b* revited to
nonartainment or undassifiable. Upon
receipt of response* by the governors of
the affected Slates, EPA Witt review the
submitted infonnmtitta *t»d conduct
appropriate ralemsking, at which time
the public wilt bave additions!
opportunity for review and comment.1
TASLE fl!.— LEAD DESta-SAnows
£Ara«EPAb*tv»«>hc«*«t»«ii«ot aad af«.fai I HHM« tor tadl
JFR Doc. fll-«3B6 TOed *-l9-8fc &« wnj
Un
-------
"New Hampshire; Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program" (continued) ~ Federal
Register/Vol.56,No.77/Monday, April 22, 1991/Rules and Regulations/p. 16277
Federal Register / Vol.' 58.'No. ii f Monday, April 22, 1891 / Ru!es and'
16277
U.S. EPA. Region I Library llth Floor, 1
Congress Street, Boston, MA 02203,
Phone: [617] 565-3380.
EPA and New Hampshire will hold
the public hearing on May 23,1991 in
room 112, Health S Welfare Building, fl
Hazen Drive, Concord, NH. The hearing
will begin at 10 a.m. and wffl continue
until the enti of testimony or 1 PJDD..,
whichever conies first,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan L Hanainoto HPU-1,
Underground Storage Tank Program,
U.S. EPA, Eegion I JFK Federal Building,
Boston, MA 02203. Comments should be
sent to this address. Phone: [SIT] 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 the Federal
UST program. Two types of approval
may be granted. The first type, known
as "interim approval" a a temporary
approval which is granted if EPA
determines that At state UST program
is "no less stringent" than the Federal
program (section 9«J4(b), 42 U.S.C
6981e(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 lesa stringent" standards for the
fallowing 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) 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
recordkeaping, release reporting,
corrective action, tank closure, and
notification requirements of section
90fM(a}{8), *Z U.S.C. 6991«fa)(8); and (2]
provides for adequate enforcement of
compliance with UST standards (section
9004(8), 42 U.S.C. 6991c{a}).
8. New Hampshire
On December 29,1988, the State of
new Hampshire submitted a draft
application for program approval The
State decided to tether amend then-
US! rules and to also include roles
implementing admmiatratjve foes for
violations of the UST rales. The public .
notice requested comments on the
amendments and administrative fine
rules, stated the date for the public
hearing, and Included the State's intent
for seeking final program appraml The
public heacing was teW OR February 6,
1990, and the amended UST rules
became effective oa November 2, 1990.
OH December 1-9. 1990. New
Hampshire submitted aa official
application for final approval. Prior to
its sobmksien, 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 281USO(b).
EPA has reviewed New Hampshire's
application, and has tentatively
determined that the State's program
meets all of the requirements necessary
to cjaalify -for final approval.
Consietpently, EPA Intends to grant final
approval to New Hampshire to operate
.
In accordance with section 9004 of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C, 69910 and 40 CFR
2BlJO{e). the Agency will hold a public
hearing on its tentative decision on May
23, 1931 in Concord, New Hampshire,
from 10 am-l p,m, The public may also
submit written comments on EPA'i
tentative determination until May 23,
1991. Copies of New Hampshire's
application are available for inspection
and copying at the locations indicated in
the "AHMMEME*" section of this notice.
The New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services, through the
Water Supply and Pollution Control
Division is dedicating * substantial
effort to prevent remediate, and manage
UST-related groundwater 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 rules.
Existing UST rules were amended to
become "no less stringent" than the
Federal UST regulations of 40 CFR part
280.
(2] The assessment of a tank permit
fee (RSA 146-C:4).
(3J Authority to impose administrative
fines for vid»tian« of any pro vi»ion of
the statute fRSA M6-C:16-a).
(4) Authority to conduct UST related
compliance monitoring and enforcement
activities PSA 148-GdO).
(5] Strict liability for owners and
opeitrtors for corrective action (RSA
Chapter 146-D provides lor the
following;
(1) FinmeM responsibility for the
cleanup of oil discharge and disposal
discharge and disposal and third party
damages (RSA 146-D:8].
EPA wiB consider all pubBc'oomments
on its tentative determination received
during the public comment period or at
the hearing. Issues raised by those
comments may be the basis for 8
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.
Conp&nx* With Executive Onief 12291
The Office of Management and Budget
hag exempted this rale from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
Certification Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
Pursuant to S U.S.C. 605{b), I heceby
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 nol
impose any new burden? on small
entities. This rule, therefore, does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
List of Subjects is 40 CF1 Fart 281
Administrative practice and
procedure, Hazardous material. State
program approval Underground storage
tanks.
Authority: This notice if issued under the
authority of wctien 9BM ef the Soiid Waste
Dispoial Act at amended. 42 U.S.C 68910.
Stephen 8. PwiclM,
ActingRegionalAdministtatae.
[FR Doc. 91-4368 Filed 4-19-01; 8:45 am]
MUJNOOOM
DEPARTMENT OF THE MiTEMOR
Bureau at Umt Mwtagmmirt
43 CFR Public land Order 6849
[CA-MO-4214HQ; CAUk fttSTfrUHMt]
Revocation of Public Land Order No.
[2) Financial assistance to owners of
underground storage tanks through
reimbursement for cleanup of ml
AOINCV: Bureau of Land Management
Interior,
OSWER Directive 9650.12
B-12
-------
APPENDIX C: APPROVAL DETERMINATIONS
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 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
OSWER Directive 9650.12 C-l
-------
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
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.
OSWER Directive 9650.12 C-2
-------
Dated:
Regional Administrator
OSWER Directive 9650.12 C-3
-------
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).
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.)
OSWER Directive 9650.12 C-4
-------
(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 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), and 6991c.
Dated:
Regional Administrator
OSWER Directive 9650.12 C-5
-------
APPENDIX D: CODIFICATION OF APPROVED STATE PROGRAMS
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 codification 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].
OSWER Directive 9650.12 D-l
-------
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
699 le. 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. 699 Id and 699 le, 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
282 lists those approved [insert State name] authorities that would fall into this category.
OSWER Directive 9650.12 D-2
-------
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 cannot 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 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.
OSWER Directive 9650.12 D-3
-------
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
OSWER Directive 9650.12 D-4
-------
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:
SUB PART [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 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
699 le). 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 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
OSWER Directive 9650. 12 D-5
-------
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 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
OSWER Directive 9650.12 D-6
-------
U.S.C. 6991 et seq. [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. seq.
(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
OSWER Directive 9650.12 D-7
-------
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].
OSWER Directive 9650.12 D-8
-------
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 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 ).
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, 699 Id, and
699 le, 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.
OSWER Directive 9650.12 D-9
-------
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 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 cannot 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.
OSWER Directive 9650.12 D-10
-------
Dated:
Regional Administrator
OSWER Directive 9650.12 D-l 1
-------
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:
SUB PART [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. 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.
OSWER Directive 9650.12 D-12
-------
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 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 seq.
OSWER Directive 9650.12 D-13
-------
(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 seq.
(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
OSWER Directive 9650.12 D-14
-------
CFR REFERENCE FOR CODIFICATION OF STATE UST PROGRAMS
PART 282
Subpart B - Alabama
282.59-282.99
Subpart DD - Nevada
282.1450-282.1499
Subpart C - Alaska
282.100-282-149
Subpart EE - New Hampshire
282.1500-282.1549
Subpart D - Arizona
282.150-282.199
Subpart FF - New Jersey
282.1550-282.1599
Subpart E - Arkansas
282.200-282.249
Subpart GG - New Mexico
282.1600-282.1649
Subpart F - California
282.250-282.299
Subpart HH - New York
282.1650-282.1699
Subpart G - Colorado
282.300-282.349
Subpart II - North Carolina
282.7000-282.1749
Subpart H - Connecticut
282.350-282.399
Subpart JJ - North Dakota
282.1750-282.1799
Subpart I - Delaware
282.400-282.449
Subpart KK - Ohio
282.1800-282.1849
Subpart J - District of Columbia Subpart LL - Oklahoma
282.450-282.499 282.1850-282.1899
Subpart K - Florida
282.500-282.549
Subpart MM - Oregon
282.1900-282.1949
Subpart L - Georgia
282.550-282.599
Subpart NN - Pennsylvania
282.1950-282.1999
Subpart M - Hawaii
282.600-282.649
Subpart OO - Rhode Island
282.2000-282.2049
OSWER Directive 9650.12
D-15
-------
Subpart N - Idaho
282.650-282.699
Subpart PP - South Carolina
282.2050-282.2099
Subpart O - Illinois
282.700-282.749
Subpart QQ - South Dakota
282.2100-282.2149
Subpart P - Indiana
282.750-282.799
Subpart RR - Tennessee
282.2150-282.2199
Subpart Q - Iowa
282.800-282.849
Subpart SS - Texas
282.2200-282.2249
Subpart R - Kansas
282.850-282.899
Subpart TT - Utah
282.2250-282.2299
Subpart S - Kentucky
282.900-282.949
Subpart UU - Vermont
282.2300-282.2349
Subpart T - Louisiana
282.950-282.999
Subpart VV - Virginia
282.2350-282.2399
Subpart U - Maine
282.1000-282.1049
Subpart WW - Washington
282-2400-282.2449
Subpart V - Maryland
282.1050-282.1099
Subpart XX - West Virginia
282.2450-282.2499
Subpart W - Massachusetts
282.1100-282.1149
Subpart YY - Wisconsin
282.2500-282.2549
Subpart X - Michigan
282.1150-282.1199
Subpart ZZ - Wyoming
282.2550-282.2599
Subpart Y - Minnesota
282.1200-282.1249
Subpart AAA - Guam
282.2600-282.2649
Subpart Z - Mississippi
282.1250-282.1299
Subpart BBB - Puerto Rico
282.2650-282.2699
OSWER Directive 9650.12
D-16
-------
Subpart AA - Missouri
282.1300-282.1349
Subpart CCC - Virgin Islands
282.2700-282.2749
Subpart BB - Montana
282.1350-282.1399
Subpart DDD - American Samoa
282.2750-282.2799
Subpart CC - Nebraska
282.1400-282.1449
Subpart EEE - Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
282.2800-282.2849
OSWER Directive 9650.12
D-17
-------
APPENDIX E: CHECKLIST FOR COMPLETE STATE APPLICATIONS
Complete Application Checklist
1. Governor's Letter D
2. Attorney's General Certification D
3. Attorney's General Statement (Demonstration of No Less Stringent Objectives and Adequate ,—,
Enforcement Authorities)
4. Demonstration of Adequate Enforcement Procedures D
5. Program Description D
6. Memorandum of Agreement D
7. State Statutes D
8. State Regulations D
9. Schedule for Interim Approval (If Applying for Interim Approval) D
OSWER Directive 9650.12 E-l
------- |