Jump to main content.


63 FR 51528-51529 September 28, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 187) 40 CFR Part 281 [FRL-6167-7] Virginia; Final Approval of Underground Storage Tank Program

[Federal Register: September 28, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 187)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 51528-51529]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28se98-8]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 281

[FRL-6167-7]

 
Virginia; Final Approval of Underground Storage Tank Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final determination on Virginia's application for 
program approval.

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

SUMMARY: The Commonwealth of Virginia (State) has applied for approval 
of its underground storage tank program under Subtitle I of the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the State's application and has 
made a final determination that the State's underground storage tank 
program satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for 
approval. Thus, EPA is granting final approval to the State to operate 
its program.

EFFECTIVE DATES: Program approval for Virginia shall be effective on 
October 28, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemarie Nino, State Programs Branch, 
Waste & Chemicals Management Division (3WC21), U.S. EPA Region III, 
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029, (215) 814-
3377.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    Section 9004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
authorizes EPA to approve a State's underground storage tank program to 
operate in the State in lieu of the Federal underground storage tank 
(UST) program. To qualify for approval, a State's program must be ``no 
less stringent'' than the Federal program in all seven elements set 
forth at section 9004(a)(1) through (7) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c(a)(1) 
through (7), as well as the notification requirements of section 
9004(a)(8) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991c(a)(8) and must provide for adequate 
enforcement of compliance with UST standards (section 9004(a) of RCRA, 
42 U.S.C. 6991c(a)).
    On July 15, 1998, the State submitted an official application for 
EPA approval to administer its underground storage tank program. On 
July 30, 1998, EPA published a tentative determination announcing its 
intent to approve the State's program. Further background on the 
tentative decision to grant approval appears at 63 FR 40683-40685, 
(July 30, 1998).
    Along with the tentative determination, EPA announced the 
availability of the application for public review and comment, and the 
date of a tentative public hearing on the application and EPA's 
tentative determination. EPA requested advance notice for testimony and 
reserved the right to cancel the public hearing in the event of 
insufficient public interest. EPA did not receive any public comments 
and since there were no requests to hold a public hearing, it was 
cancelled.

B. Final Decision

    I conclude that the State's application for program approval meets 
all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by 
Subtitle I of RCRA and 40 CFR part 281. Accordingly, the State is 
granted approval to operate its underground storage tank program in 
lieu of the Federal program.

C. Compliance With Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from 
the requirements of Section 6 of Executive Order 12866.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of certain regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under sections 202 and 205 of the 
UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement of economic and 
regulatory alternatives analyses for proposed and final rules with 
Federal mandates, as defined by the UMRA, that may result in 
expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. The 
section 202 and 205 requirements do not apply to today's action because 
it is not a ``Federal mandate'' and because it does not impose annual 
costs of $100 million or more.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates for State, local or 
tribal governments or the private sector for two reasons. First, 
today's action does not impose new or additional enforceable duties on 
any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector because 
the requirements of the State program are already imposed by the State 
and subject to State law. Second, the Act also generally excludes from 
the definition of a ``Federal mandate'' duties that arise from 
participation in a voluntary Federal program. A State's participation 
in an authorized UST program is voluntary.
    Even if today's rule did contain a Federal mandate, this rule will 
not result in annual expenditures of $100 million or more for State, 
local, and/or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private 
sector. Costs to State, local and/or tribal governments already exist 
under the State program, and today's action does not impose any 
additional obligations on regulated entities. In fact, EPA's approval 
of state programs generally may reduce, not increase, compliance costs 
for the private sector.
    The requirements of section 203 of UMRA also do not apply to 
today's action. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that 
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, section 203 of 
the UMRA requires EPA to develop a small government agency plan. This 
rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. The Agency recognizes that although 
small governments may own and/or operate USTs, they are already subject 
to the regulatory requirements under existing state law which are being 
authorized by EPA, and, thus, are not subject to any additional 
significant or unique requirements by virtue of this program approval.

[[Page 51529]]

E. Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    EPA has determined that this authorization will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Such small entities which own and/or operate USTs are already subject 
to the regulatory requirements under existing State law which are being 
authorized by EPA pursuant to this Final Rule. EPA's authorization does 
not impose any additional burdens on these small entities; rather EPA's 
authorization of Virginia's UST program today simply results in an 
administrative change, rather than a change in the substantive 
requirements imposed on these small entities.
    Therefore, EPA provides the following certification under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act. Pursuant to the provision at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), 
I hereby certify that this authorization will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
authorization approves regulatory requirements under existing State law 
to which small entities are already subject. It does not impose any new 
burdens on small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a 
regulatory flexibility analysis.

F. Compliance With Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that the Office of 
Management and Budget determines is ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and that EPA determines that the 
environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The Agency has determined that the final rule is not a covered 
regulatory action as defined in the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant and does not address environmental health and 
safety risks. As such, the final rule is not subject to the 
requirements of Executive Order 13045.

G. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report 
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the 
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's 
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 281

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Hazardous materials, State program approval, Underground storage tanks.

    Authority: This document is issued under the authority of 
Section 9004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as 
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6991c.

    Dated: September 17, 1998.
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 3.
[FR Doc. 98-25888 Filed 9-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Top of page


Local Navigation


Jump to main content.