[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53919-53922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26328]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5619-2]
Water Pollution Control; Approval of Application by Utah to
Administer the Sludge Management (Biosolids) Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Approval of Application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The State of Utah submitted an application to EPA to
administer and enforce the sludge management program for regulating
sludge management activities in the State. The program was authorized
effective June 14, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Brobst at (303) 312-6129, Water
Permits Team (8P2-W-P); USEPA, Region VIII; One Denver Place, 999 18th
Street, Suite 500; Denver, CO 80202-2466.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The application of the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality (UDEQ) was received by EPA on October 10, 1995.
Modifications were made to the Addendum to the Memorandum of Agreement
for Sludge Management Program, based on discussions between EPA, UDEQ,
and the Office of the State Attorney General.
UDEQ's application was described in the April 17, 1996 Federal
Register at Vol. 61, No. 75, pages 16787 and 16788, and in notices
published in the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News and the St. George
Daily Spectrum on April 20, 1996.
Copies of UDEQ's application package were available for public
review at the EPA Region VIII Office and at the UDEQ office in Salt
Lake City, Utah.
EPA provided copies of the public notice to permitted facilities,
tribal councils and tribal environmental agencies, certain Federal
agencies, and environmental groups within Utah. The mailing list used
is part of the record of the program application and review process.
EPA and UDEQ discussed the program application with the Utah Office of
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and received their concurrence
[[Page 53920]]
that the proposed program authorization was unlikely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result
in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species.
By letter dated April 4, 1996, EPA provided a copy of Utah's
application to the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer and
received their concurrence by letter dated April 16, 1996. EPA accepted
written comments from the public. All comments or objections received
in writing by EPA Region VIII by May 20, 1996 were considered by EPA.
Two comments were received.
The first comment concerned jurisdiction on Indian Country. The
Blackfeet Nation, Blackfeet Environmental Office, stated that:
``Utah DEQ should only be able to permit on lands outside the
exterior boundary of the Indian reservations in Utah. The
Environmental Protection Agency has the sole responsibility of
permitting on the reservation if the tribes do not or are not
capable of permitting themselves. I feel that to ensure
environmental justice to Indian Tribes, permitting should only be
done by Tribes or EPA, not States.''
As outlined in EPA's April 17, 1996 Federal Register and April 20,
1996 newspaper notices, EPA withheld from sludge management program
authorization consideration those lands which were in Indian Country or
for which there was significant controversy over whether or not the
land was Indian Country. The notices also acknowledged that the exact
geographical extent of Indian Country within the Uintah and Ouray
Indian Reservation was currently under litigation in Federal court, and
until that litigation was complete, that the EPA would enter into
discussions with the Ute Indian tribe of the Uintah and Ouray
Reservation and with the State of Utah to determine the best interim
approach to managing the program in the disputed area. In withholding
authorization for these areas, EPA was not making a determination as to
whether or not Utah had adequate jurisdiction. As noted earlier, EPA
provided copies of Utah's public notices to tribal councils and tribal
environmental agencies located within or abutting the State of Utah.
It should be noted that there are no EPA-issued sludge management
permits for facilities or activities in Indian Country at this time.
Operators or owners of facilities or activities subject to the sludge
management program which are located on or within the Uintah and Ouray
Reservation should send permit applications to EPA. Persons with
questions as to whether their facilities may be in Indian Country are
advised to consult with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the EPA.
The second comment, from the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
District, supported approval of Utah's request for delegation of the
biosolids program. The District also requested that EPA issue national
guidance explicitly providing for reciprocity for other-state issued
permits for ``exceptional quality'' bulk or bagged sludge. This request
was outside the purview of this authorization action and was forwarded
to the EPA Office of Water.
Conclusion
The State of Utah has demonstrated that it adequately meets the
requirements for program modification to include sludge management as
defined in the Clean Water Act, 40 CFR Part 123, and 40 CFR Part 503.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service concurred with the EPA ``no adverse
effect'' determination regarding program authorization. The State
Historic Preservation Office concurred with the EPA ``no affect''
determination.
At this time, EPA is withholding authorization to administer the
sludge management program on Indian Country located within Utah,
including lands for which there is significant controversy over whether
or not the land is Indian Country.
Federal Register Notice of Approval of State NPDES Programs or
Modifications
EPA must provide Federal Register notice of any action by the
Agency approving or modifying a State NPDES program. The following
table will provide the public with an up-to-date list of the status of
NPDES permitting authority throughout the country. Today's Federal
Register notice is to announce the approval of Utah's authority to
administer the sludge management program.
State NPDES Program Status
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved state Approved to Approved State
State NPDES permit regulate Federal pretreatment Approved general Approved sludge
program facilities program permits program management program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................. 10/19/79 10/19/79 10/19/79 06/26/91
Arkansas............................................ 11/01/86 11/01/86 11/01/86 11/01/86
California.......................................... 05/14/73 05/05/78 09/22/89 09/22/89
Colorado............................................ 03/27/75 .................. .................. 03/04/83
Connecticut......................................... 09/26/73 01/09/89 06/03/81 03/10/92
Delaware............................................ 04/01/74 .................. .................. 10/23/92
Florida \1\......................................... 05/01/95 05/01/95 05/01/95 05/01/95
Georgia............................................. 06/28/74 12/08/80 03/12/81 01/28/91
Hawaii.............................................. 11/28/74 06/01/79 08/12/83 09/30/91
Illinois............................................ 10/23/77 09/20/79 .................. 01/04/84
Indiana............................................. 01/01/75 12/09/78 .................. 04/02/91
Iowa................................................ 08/10/78 08/10/78 06/03/81 08/12/92
Kansas.............................................. 06/28/74 08/28/85 .................. 11/24/93
Kentucky............................................ 09/30/83 09/30/83 09/30/83 09/30/83
Maryland............................................ 09/05/74 11/10/87 09/30/85 09/30/91
Michigan............................................ 10/17/73 12/09/78 04/16/85 ..................
Minnesota........................................... 06/30/74 12/09/78 07/16/79 12/15/87
Mississippi......................................... 05/01/74 01/28/83 05/13/82 09/27/91
Missouri............................................ 10/30/74 06/26/79 06/03/81 12/12/85
Montana............................................. 06/10/74 06/23/81 .................. 04/29/83
Nebraska............................................ 06/12/74 11/02/79 09/07/84 07/20/89
Nevada.............................................. 09/19/75 08/31/78 .................. 07/27/92
New Jersey.......................................... 04/13/82 04/13/82 04/13/82 04/13/82
New York............................................ 10/28/75 06/13/80 .................. 10/15/92
North Carolina...................................... 10/19/75 09/28/84 06/14/82 09/06/91
[[Page 53921]]
North Dakota........................................ 06/13/75 01/22/90 .................. 01/22/90
Ohio................................................ 03/11/74 01/28/83 07/27/83 08/17/92
Oregon.............................................. 09/26/73 03/02/79 03/12/81 02/23/82
Pennsylvania........................................ 06/30/78 06/30/78 .................. 08/02/91
Rhode Island........................................ 09/17/84 09/17/84 09/17/84 09/17/84
South Carolina...................................... 06/10/75 09/26/80 04/09/82 09/03/92
South Dakota........................................ 12/30/93 12/30/93 12/30/93 12/30/93
Tennessee........................................... 12/28/77 09/30/86 08/10/83 04/18/91
Utah................................................ 07/07/87 07/07/87 07/07/87 07/07/87 06/14/96
Vermont............................................. 03/11/74 .................. 03/16/82 08/26/93
Virgin Islands...................................... 06/30/76 .................. .................. ..................
Virginia............................................ 03/31/75 02/09/82 04/14/89 05/20/91
Washington.......................................... 11/14/73 .................. 09/30/86 09/26/89
West Virginia....................................... 05/10/82 05/10/82 05/10/82 05/10/82
Wisconsin........................................... 02/04/74 11/26/79 12/24/80 12/19/86
Wyoming............................................. 01/30/75 05/18/81 .................. 09/24/91
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.......................................... 41 36 29 39 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Fully Authorized Programs (Federal Facilities, Pretreatment, General Permits, Sludge Management)=1.
\1\ The Florida authorizations of 05/01/95 represents a phased NPDES program authorization to be completed by the year 2000.
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.
EPA recognizes that small entities may own and/or operate facilities or
businesses that will become subject to the requirements of an approved
state sludge management program. However, since such small entities
which own and/or operate sludge management facilities or businesses are
already subject to the requirements in 40 CFR parts 423 and 503, this
authorization does not impose any additional burdens on these small
entities. This is because EPA's authorization would result in an
administrative change (i.e., whether EPA or the State administers the
sludge management program in that State), rather than result in a
change in the substantive requirements imposed on small entities. Once
EPA authorizes a State to administer its own sludge management program,
these same small entities will be able to own and operate their
facilities or businesses under the approved state program, in lieu of
the Federal program. Moreover, this authorization, in approving a State
program to operate in lieu of the Federal program, eliminates
duplicative requirements for owners and operators of sludge management
facilities and businesses in that particular State.
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 effectively approves the Utah program to operate in lieu
of the Federal program, thereby eliminating duplicative requirements
for sludge management facility or business operators or owners in the
State. It does not impose any new burdens on small entities. This
document, therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this document from
Executive Order 12866.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UNRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
Today's document contains no Federal mandates for State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. The Act excludes from the
definition of a ``Federal mandate'' duties that arise from
participation in a voluntary Federal program, except in certain cases
where a ``federal intergovernmental mandate'' affects an annual federal
entitlement program of $500 million or more that are not applicable
here. Utah's request for approval of its sludge management program is
voluntary and imposes no Federal mandate within the meaning of the Act.
Rather, by having
[[Page 53922]]
its sludge management program approved, the State will gain the
authority to implement the program within its jurisdiction, in lieu of
EPA thereby eliminating duplicative State and Federal requirements. If
a State chooses not to seek authorization for administration of a
sludge management program, regulation is left to EPA.
In any event, EPA has determined that this document does not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures $100 million
or more for State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year. EPA does not anticipate that the
approval of Utah's sludge management program referenced in today's
notice will result in annual costs of $100 million or more. EPA's
approval of state programs generally may reduce, not increase,
compliance costs for the private sector since the State, by virtue of
the approval, may now administer the program in lieu of EPA and
exercise primary enforcement. Hence, owners and operators of sludge
management facilities or businesses generally no longer face dual
Federal and State compliance requirements, thereby reducing overall
compliance costs. Thus, today's document is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this document contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The Agency recognizes that small governments may own and/
or operate sludge management facilities that will become subject to the
requirements of an approved State sludge management program. However,
such small governments which own and/or operate sludge management
facilities or businesses are already subject to the requirements in 40
CFR parts 123 and 503 and are not subject to any additional significant
or unique requirements by virtue of this program approval. Once EPA
authorizes a State to administer its own sludge management program and
any revisions to that program, these same small governments will be
able to own and operate their sludge management facilities or
businesses under the approved State program, in lieu of the Federal
program.
Dated: August 28, 1996.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Region
VIII.
[FR Doc. 96-26328 Filed 10-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P